Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 6

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The debate has already been relisted twice and the votes are fairly even, I doubt we're going to reach a consensus here. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or delete Yet another unnecessary article about a Monster High subject. None of the TV specials are notable and I'm pretty sure a lot of them were created by the same user. Total fancruft.*Treker (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It would require some collaborations to find good sources and improve the plot. I already handled the cast and external links. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found and offered sources above, which is why I opined a keep. The current plot section is far too long, it needs a sourced reception section, and needs to be cited. Read MOS:FILM and look at other film articles to gain clue. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is mentioned in reliable sources, but is the coverage of any substance...ie does it do more than simply establish that this sorry lump of dreck exists??TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone: Yes, as I offered above... in English, French, and Dutch. I have added some sources to the article and while I still have no love for this film topic, notability standards are met. Plot is still way too long, but notability is shown. And note: while WP:SIGCOV is the accepted guideline and most of those I offered (and used) are substantive, the requested WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not part of guideline of policy. Just sayin' Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geedhu Daniel

Geedhu Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable junior researcher... does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lack of significant coverage in a reliable source, and despite all efforts, it has not been resolved at the time of this writing. Feel free to recreate this article if this could be addressed in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Mills

Corey Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to closure and re-opening. Onel5969 TT me 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Delete Note to user Cbrad25 The 3 new references you provided to justify keep are, in order: 1) an advertisement for an event; 2) a trivial mention in a non-notable community newspaper that solicits content; 3) an entry from a user generated content webpage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note to user ShelbyMarion: I will respond to your assumptions in order. Although site one is an advertisement for an event, it shows the credibility of the mention artist- that he is sought and an influential figure. 2) Though this article is not the Commercial Appeal, this, in fact, is a notable and reliable source of information for a huge portion of the Gulf Coast- including states Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi and the coastal communities therein. Additionally, Mills resides in the exact town where the largest music festivals are held every year. 3) Worldwide Branding is notable company in itself. This company is over Worldwide Who's Who and administers authentic information. The mentioned site is not a user-generated webpage. Cbrad25 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is kept, it needs a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Teairra Marí discography. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of No Return (mixtape)

Point of No Return (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Boys' Association of Sri Sumangala College

Old Boys' Association of Sri Sumangala College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to comply with WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. It relies on WP:Primary sources (i.e. the organisation's website), with its earliest version being a direct copy and paste from that website. Dan arndt (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County Highways in the Traverse City Area

County Highways in the Traverse City Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As noted in the PROD, there are two foundational issues with this and a third additional issue.

  • First, the scope is poorly defined. If such an article were created, it should have been confined to a single county (Grand Traverse) and should then be a comprehensive list of that single county's county roads. Supposedly based on the first sentence, this is supposed to correspond to the Traverse City micropolitan area, yet that µSA only has four counties and this list has entries for nine counties. Also, what is the metric for "most traveled" in use?
  • Second, the terminology is completely wrong. The only "county highways" Michigan has are in the List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan, what this article erroneously calls the "Michigan Letter-Number System". The older numbered county road system, where still in use, the CR numbers were initially assigned in a repeating grid scheme that assigned certain numbers to certain areas, much like the concept that the Interstate Highways or the U.S. Highways in Michigan fall into certain numerical ranges. That is why CR 612 can cross county lines and retain its number.
  • Third, this list is completely unsourced. I feel that because it wasn't based on sources to start, that's why we have the two issues above, along with abbreviation formats that are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of major roadways in Michigan. As noted above, we have no source for defining these as the "most traveled" roads in these counties, so we don't even know if this listing is correct. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this specific list because its scope is poorly defined. However, the coverage of non-CDH county highways in Michigan in by-county lists is perfectly valid and it is hoped the lists can be made in the future. It may help to sandbox this list or put in on a talk page somewhere so the information can be available to editors who want to make the proper lists in the future. Dough4872 00:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists for freeways and signed highways in a major metro area are bad enough, let's not make it worse by adding even less notable highways in even less notable areas. SounderBruce 03:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Rschen7754
  • Delete. County highways are better suited to lists by county (See County routes in New York,) not by metropolitan or micropolitan area. Vcap36 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete non-notable, autobiog, no valid sources. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Greeninger

Jim Greeninger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an apparently autobiographical article on a non-notable guitar teacher, produced by the editor Jimsgreeninger (talk · contribs), who seems to be Jim Greeninger himself, the subject of the article.

The article is unsourced, other than non-specific references to Greeninger's personal web site and to Greeninger's web site for the "American School of Music", the school Greeninger runs.

I can find no basis for notability. The closest ones are Greeninger's claim that he was offered a post at Julliard (which he claims he turned down), which cannot be verified; and the claim that he "is presently listed as one of the top five living acoustic guitarist in the world at WorldGuitarRankings.com", a site that appears not to actually exist.

I proposed it for deletion in February, but Jimsgreeninger removed the prod with the edit summary "The information is valid and true. We will discuss it on the Talk page". No discussion was ever started. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AEK London F.C.

AEK London F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete no valid references, no notability. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Kirmani

Armaan Kirmani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, has not starred in any significant films, incorrect data regarding his role in the 2010 film 'Shortkut', Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Sheikh Waheed Ahmad Masood, Sheikhupur

Maulana Sheikh Waheed Ahmad Masood, Sheikhupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no references, notability of subject appears to be in doubt. Had nominated it for a PROD but the tag was removed so am moving it here. KDS4444Talk 11:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as questionable. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better local sources and information can be found as this is noticeably unsourced thus is best restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very difficult to look for sources when the subject's name is surrounded by honorifics and other qualifiers to such an extent that it's difficult for those unfamilar with the language and culture involved to even identify what the subject's name is. I'm guessing that it's "Waheed Ahmad Masood", but it would be good to get confirmation of that from someone more knowledgeable than me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that "Sheikhupur" appears to be a village in India, which suggests it is being used in the title of this article to designate a place of association rather than a name or a title. I can also tell you that "Maulana" is a variant of "Mullah", which is an honorific for a respected Muslim priest in parts of Central and South Asia. And I can tell you that "Sheikh" is another honorific Muslim title. "Waheed", "Ahmad", and "Masood", however, are all personal identifiers. Although I am a little rusty, I studied Urdu for two years back in the late 1980s, which makes me no expert, but I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with my conclusions here. Also, the name is used as "Waheed Ahmad Masood" without honorifics several times in the article, mister.... IP address. KDS4444Talk 02:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Notability cannot be inherited. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Sassoon

Eden Sassoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability as defined in WP:N states that:

those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.

There is no assertion of notability anywhere in this article as per WP:N or WP:BIO, hence the consensus is delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Michel

John E. Michel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Working in the United States Air Force does not make you notable. CV of a non-notable person Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that any general qualifies, it says that they will "almost always have sufficient coverage" to qualify, (my emphasis) which is a rather odd way to say it. Are we to conclude that the coverage is there even if we haven't found it? It seems that is how many are interpreting it. It also says: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." The only viable reference we have here is his bio at af.mil, which means that we have to determine if that is a primary document. For most BLPs, a bio at the employer's site is considered a primary document. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me as though anyone commenting here has really looked for sources - I was quickly able to find interviews at National Geographic, Huffingtonpost and ZDNet, along with articles published under his byline at Military Times and Harvard Business Review. It's not like the guy is invisible - or entirely self-published. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am tempted to delete per consensus, but would like to see further admin input. WP:SOLDIER is slightly imprecise; a brigadier-general is of sufficiently high rank, but he appears never to have commanded significant forces in combat, which the policy stipulates; commanding a training formation in Afghanistan may or may not qualify. He does not appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER under any other criterion, given that the mere fact of his rank is not sufficient. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I read WP:SOLDIER to confer notability if any of the criteria are met, not all of them; and #3 ("Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents") would appear to apply without anything further required. But as I said, I could be wrong; and so welcome further input too. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my reading of that, the crucial part is before the numbered points: "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage..." i.e. the essay is pointing out that high-ranking officers tend to have had significant coverage in RS such that WP:BIO is met, but it is not an automatic rule that those with a certain rank are notable. So the question is whether the sources provided by JohnInDC above are sufficient to confer notability. It's tricky because the subject of those sources is more his book rather than himself. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Lakhan

Rajesh Lakhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, infobox name-checks "Gold Medal in Table Tennis at the Intercampus Games of The University of the West Indies (2011)" under Notable work. The user who created the article appears to have a COI, their other article the closely related My Study Community is currently pending deletion. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Andersen

Amy Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CEO of a non-notable company, created by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete not notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linx Dating

Linx Dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam of a non-notable company by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lawsuits and disputes and not generally notable, and the fact that two fringe organisations had a falling out is not in itself worthy of an article. This topic does not have the independent notability needed for a standalone article. Relevant, well-sourced content can be (and is) included in the articles on the respective organisations. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no convincing arguments for keep or delete in this debate. Debut is not a reliable way of gauging notability, nor it's a reliable way to rule out notability. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCT (band)

NCT (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boy band that has yet to debut. —teb728 t c 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. Too soon, and this is just a very minor boy band. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 7 April 2016[reply]
  • Keep now it debuted. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 15:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I predict this AfD will be very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Velvet (band). There is almost no chance of this group not being notable in a week or two. Random86 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It debuted with several music videos under one of the biggest labels in that country. They may be new but they'll be big fast. ₪RicknAsia₪
  • Keep Debut in Korea is scheduled for April 15th. The members all come from a popular show in Korea entitled SM Rookies, where you follow the journey of trainees from SM Entertainment--this means they already have considerable notoriety pre-debut. Also, their music videos have already garnered (as of 4/13/2016 @14:42) 3,129,654 for "The 7th Sense", 1,326,347 for "Without You", and 937,610 for "The 7th Sense--Performance Video", and they were all released within the last 4 days. The group is also part of a major content reorganization for one of the largest music entertainment companies in South Korea, SM Entertainment: NCT U is just one of many planned groups debuting under the "NCT brand", and they are expected to perform very well in the South Korean charts as well as in major overseas Korean music markets because of aforementioned pre-debut activities and other marketing strategies by SM Entertainment. Navarrocortez (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 14:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters but SM Rookies was never a show. It's just what SM calls their rookies and they put a few of them on some programs when they can but most of them aren't well known to the public the way the girls of produce 101 are.Peachywink (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bain

Paul Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football player, fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall talk 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-5806.01

KOI-5806.01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed candidate of a possible planet at another star. No indication of notability. Google returns 15 hits for "KOI-5806" which consists of false matches such as license plates, Wikipedia + Wikipedia clone pages, and two indiscriminate astronomical-catalog-listings. Indiscriminate catalogs or lists are not evidence of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-5). (Edit: a Google search on "KOI 5806.01" gave 13 hits, with basically the same outcome.) The two refs in the article are catalog/list type.

Consider that over the years actually-discovered-planets will grow into the thousands and eventually millions. We should not have bare catalog-listings of statistics on millions of non-notable planets, much less hypothetical planets. We could not even have indiscriminate "list of" articles containing millions of planets. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Someone looking for bare statistics on non-notable astronomical bodies should check an astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think articles about individual KOIs probably should be deleted in general unless there is something particularly unique about them which has been noticed in numerous papers. jps (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at nominating other KOIs for deletion, but let's let this AFD run as a trial balloon. Assuming this is deleted then maybe I'll group the other KOIs in one AFD listing. People are invited to comment on the advisability (or inadvisability) of grouping the other KOI's into a future AFD. Alsee (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged 7 KOI- articles for notability. None of those articles have refs supporting notability, and I spent a lot of time searching sources on them. Non-notable. Maybe I'll list those as a batch. There's also over a hundred exoplanet articles listed in Category:Exoplanets_discovered_by_Kepler_(spacecraft). Checking some of the others in the category at random, most are are non-notable but it looks like there there are exceptions. It's going to take take quite a while to properly check them. Alsee (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning delete) In this AfD and similar others I see comments across the board to the effect that proven existence of a planet/moon/etc. is a prerequisite or at least a big plus to keep the article. Can someone explain why (WP:CBALL is not enough)? I mean, if there is WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT #3 coverage it does not matter if the object eventually is proven not to exist (the subject is notable, even though it is about a speculative topic), and if there is not then it does not matter either (since then it is not notable, at least yet). Tigraan (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do see WP:NASTRO. I didn't see anyone else link to it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this is a reply to my question, but if so, the closest I can find in all of WP:NASTRO is "the fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability" - which says that existence is not a sufficient condition, but it does not say it is necessary. (And I do not think it should be, per above.) Tigraan (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Existence isn't necessary, but non-existing is a definite negative in cases with borderline coverage. A non-existing object has zero likelyhood of having on-going relevance or accumulating additional notability. And it's particularly bad to have an article on a non-notable non-existing object. Here, someone created a batch of articles on real objects, unconfirmed objects, and purely hypothetical objects, that have little or no coverage. The articles are backed up by indiscriminate catalog listings - basically the equivalent of citing phone book listings to support a batch of biographical articles. The fact that my name, address, and phone number were published in a "Reliable Source" phone book does not establish notability. The article creator has also been spamming "Earth Similarity Index" everywhere which has negligible accepted scientific acceptance, they have been hyping the habitability&alien-life angle everwhere including purely hypothetical moons, they have been blocked for using sock accounts to multiple-vote in AFD's and RFC's (it looks like 5 or more votes in some cases), and they also used the sock account to do a bogus Good Article review and promote they own work to Good Article status. Alsee (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the nominator's formulation of the issues. This exoplanet candidate should be subject to WP:GNG and WP:NASTCRIT, and it does not fulfill either. Regarding NASTCRIT #3 (as pointed out by Tigraan), there were no results when I did a full-text search for this candidate exoplanet in NASA's ADS search engine. More broadly, I agree that the KOIs shouldn't have their own articles unless they fulfill either WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT. Otherwise, there would be a flood of articles which needlessly duplicate basic catalog information. Astro4686 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43, recheck WP:NASTRO. It says The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. Confirmation of existence definitely doesn't pass the threshold for notability. Advancing technology is going to find millions of exoplanets in the coming years. We should not be a catalog listing raw physical data on millions of non-notable objects. Anyone looking for that sort of indiscriminate raw scientific data is better off going to a dedicated scientific astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of my citing NASTRO was that we aren't even to the point where we have a confirmed instanced where we'd begin considering notability. I'm far from proposing a catalogue of even confirmed exoplanets, which hopefully should be clear from my mention of NOTCATALOGUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7, or {{db-band}} kelapstick(bainuu) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Nature (band)

Call of Nature (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND - no secondary sources, highest award seems to have been a high school "battle of the bands", band has apparently never released an album. McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by JzG per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music America

Classical Music America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable online radio station being self promoted by Ottaway, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by JzG per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Worldwide Van Lines

Stevens Worldwide Van Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable moving company not at all clear that it passes WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munni Sanchez

Munni Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by article creator without comment. Concern was that she is not notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I consider it necessary to have a new discussion based on the fact that this page is actually a duplicate of List of CDMA2000 networks where all information seems to be available with sources already. The latter page is already linked from the main article Evolution-Data Optimized. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a #REDIRECT is not even necessary here, as this page does not seem to be widely linked from other pages. The wiki-links in Evolution-Data Optimized have already been replaced. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chucky 7

Chucky 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as per WP:HAMMER and WP:NCRYSTAL Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Verbeeck

Inga Verbeeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage of the subject in RS so a considerable way off meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to International Air Transport Association airport code. Editorial consensus can determine whether to merge anything.  Sandstein  20:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of airport IATA codes

Origin of airport IATA codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article only contains trivia about IATA airport codes, and should be deleted per WP:IINFO. Not a notable topic, and cannot be objectively and reliably sourced. SSTflyer 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a collection of non-notable information. Could maybe be included as a parameter in {{Infobox airport}} (in the same way that {{Infobox radio station}} has call sign meaning) but I can't see much of a need for that. —  crh 23  (Talk) 14:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge as well. --Mark viking (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme

Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. This article has previously been deleted (previous AfD nomination), and there is no evidence that its notability has increased. SSTflyer 12:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited Aviation Week piece talks about "my story". There remains a smell of promotionalism as well as insufficient reliable third-party evidence of notability. The right editor might be able to create a useful article - so let it wait until then. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhi Mehta

Vidhi Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reference cited does not confer to wp:RS , other sources seems to original Shrikanthv (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources link of her songs and links is here take a look

https://www.myswar.com/artist/vidhi-mehta
^ https://www.mtv.com/artists/vidhi-mehta
^ http://www.hungama.com/artists/vidhi-mehta/8095

^ http://gaana.com/artist/vidhi-mehta

^ https://www.songdew.com/vidhimehta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzL_LqPJoNI

^ https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Papon-Angaraag-Smita-Jain-Vidhi-Mehta/Khamma-Ghani-From-Happy-Ending ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLwZN74Fqrk

^ https://itunes.apple.com/in/album/happy-ending-original-motion/id1069794260

devilisback 17:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ചക്കളത്തിപ്പോരാട്ടം

ചക്കളത്തിപ്പോരാട്ടം (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-English article that was created 15 days ago with no attempts made to translate it. It was prodded almost a week ago but the Prod template has been removed. Google translation suggests it is about a phrase used in movies, so is of dubious notability anyway. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - A1 - Tagged as such as obviously not in English, Technically A1 does't apply but then technically I cannot identify the subject of the article.... 'cos it's not English .... Anyway Delete. –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, unfortunately WP:A1 explicitly excludes coherent non-English material. We have to assume it was coherent to the author in their language, since they even provided a link to what looks like a dictionary definition of the term. I checked throughly to see if any speedy criteria could be applied before bringing it here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Athomeinkobe - Damnit I had a feeling it wouldn't work , For some reason I thought me being all technical would've helped lol, Ah well normal delete it is ... or was I suppose , –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IP left this comment on the article talk page a few days ago:To User:Eventhorizon51, It describes about oil millstone and deceitful tact used to takeover portions of oil when the millstone is used by multiple persons at the same time. It further signifies the use of word in reference to the tact used in political games in current times and describes them as shows. I don't know the global importance it has in Wikipedia English. But moving the article to Malayalam portal of Wikipedia(ml.wikipedia.org) would be good decision for the time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Delete, per WP:PNT standard practice--Jac16888 Talk 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is another case of an article started and no one noticing they should put at least basic English. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Jubayer

Abdullah Al Jubayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictious Xx C00l G$Y x#t@lk 05:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 09:54 on 6 April 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) "A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korea in arabic

Korea in arabic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, notability not established, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mano Thutão

Mano Thutão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

news search result is not showing anything. Greek Legend (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment- There is very little, but there is some information available in Portuguese. This announcement about his death in the local newspaper of Araçatuba, São Paulo is the best that I found. A deceased Brazilian Christian rapper with only one three albums will likely not have many editors digging around to establish notability on enwiki—the article has been deleted a couple times on ptwiki. giso6150 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — I changed this comment to a vote. giso6150 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ptwiki means Portuguese wiki?. Do you have the links? --Greek Legend (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry to abbreviate without linking… the red link on Portuguese Wikipedia for Mano Thutão shows (me) three prior deletions. Administrators may see more information than I do. giso6150 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Khiangte

Catherine Khiangte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer with questionable notability with no sources to be found outside of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (if Instagram can even be called one-at least FB has some stuff on it) Anyway I can't seem to find anything about her at all looking around for her. Wgolf (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Challenor

Aimee Challenor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, based half on primary sources and half on glancing namechecks of her existence in media coverage which isn't about her, of a person whose only substantive claims of notability are as an LGBT issues spokesperson for a minor political party and as a non-winning candidate for election to a local city council. Neither of these confer an WP:NPOL pass -- but she doesn't pass WP:GNG either as the media coverage here is not about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics related companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT DIRECTORY. A few of of these companies are notable major firms with appropriate WP articles, though I doubt they would be notable for the microfluidics work alone; a few smaller ones may even be notable primarily for microfluidics. A few others without an article might be individually notable also. Butthat doesn't mean a list is justified. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups (3rd nomination) DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angel De-Mar

Angel De-Mar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ignoring the SPAs, as we're supposed to do, , clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slenke

Slenke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Google news returns one result: PRnewswire. Article has sources but they are mostly low-quality PR pages. The only solid ref is from the Globe and mail. Without diverse sources the company fails WP:GNG and is distinctly promotiional in nature as well. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infatuated

Infatuated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased album with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all notability requirements. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetcron

Sweetcron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The results of the first AfD notwithstanding, this defunct software fails WP:NSOFT. Article has been tagged for notability since 2011 and all links are dead. This is just another failed software project, no indication it was ever notable. Safiel (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FirstCom

FirstCom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable company, largely penned by representatives of the company and written like an advertisement. I can find no evidence the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. In fact, I can find no secondary sources on this company, so there would be nothing to build a better article out of. Cited sources are either from the company's website or that of its parent company. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Found no relevant secondary sources (many were talking about an Irish marketing agency). Article is almost entirely written by a single editor, the majority of whose contributions have been to that article. Fails WP:ORG and probably WP:PLUG too. -crh23 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is actively being improved over time. Secondary sources are available, and being added. Would appreciate editorial assistance to improve page over deletion of page. - ReceptFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptfc (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 April 2016‎

 Comment:This account is an SPA associated with the subject of the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Eisenberg

Jamey Eisenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a journalist, which is sourced nowhere but his "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer and his own Twitter feed. A journalist does not get a Wikipedia article just because primary and directly affiliated sources verify that he exists; he gets an article when he's substantively the subject of enough coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. But nothing like that has been shown here, and nothing like that is locatable on the Google either -- all I get is hits where he's the bylined author of the content, or hits where he's namechecked as a soundbite provider in an article about something else, but I'm not finding hits where he's the subject of the coverage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if real reliable source coverage, about him rather than just verifying his existence, can be located. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NUSMods

NUSMods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an app used by the National University of Singapore. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND. I cannot see the notability of an application used by the students of only one university. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Malyuga

Gregory Malyuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Can't find anything. Greek Legend (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At Least one RS source.Greek Legend (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-sock user. North America1000 01:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala (musical artist)

Ayala (musical artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. No RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davao Catholic Herald

Davao Catholic Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject lacks significant coverage; reliable sources can't be found. Tagged for PROD but it was contested by a newly-registered user whose edits involve removal of PRODs. Sixth of March 00:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad Liberal Press

Etihad Liberal Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-Notable. can't find sources. Greek Legend (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schofield (journalist)

Jack Schofield (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only primary sources from where he wrote (The Guardian)—no secondary sources. Doesn't meet any point of the journalist notability guideline as it is. czar 01:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one is useless, being a search for the exact phrase "Jack Schofield (journalist)". My search looks for sources containing the exact phrase "Jack Schofield" and, separately, the word "Guardian". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 14:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade City

Arcade City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently an attempt to promote the company and their mobile application. No indicators of high usage/download rank or any popularity (<800 users daily activity). No distinction from hundreds of thousands of other similar applications shown either. Finally, no citations in any majorly circulated media. Free.enchant (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Bishonen (procedural close). (non-admin closure) —Nizolan (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get schwifty

Get schwifty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vandalism. See entry creation. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisthe2 - Sorry I'd forgotten to readd the tag, Thanks for readding it back for me :) –Davey2010Talk 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Okay, thanks. When I saw the page (which you say are lyrics), I was under the impression that it was a bunch of gibberish, posted by the author. It's been a long time since I've read anything so stupid.
KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 08:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_6&oldid=1142623790"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 6, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.