Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:14, 25 January 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 24 January	26 January >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Butin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant coverage not available with Google search. Rony 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Olympic competitors are notable per WP:ATHLETE. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympic athletes automatically meet WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (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 per WP:CSD#A2 as duplication of zh:釋學誠. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

释学诚

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The tone of this article is like a news release, it has original research, and may not assert notability. It's in the Chinese language as well. Snowager (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A2 Untranslated indiscriminate duplicate of significant parts of zh:釋學誠 (simp. Chinese), including the {{original research}}/{{inappropriate tone}}/{{newsrelease}} warning templates. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:16, 25 January 2015 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dairese Gary

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NHOOPS John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plaing in a development league rarely makes one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Social Login Providers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not encyclopedic content. This is just a directory. Just a list of social web sites that have a certain option. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia indeed is not a directory. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes this article is to help the developers who are looking to integrate social login to their site. It list popular social networks which allows social login. As far as the list is concerned, I would say that there are many such lists available on wikipedia. And I am sure that such list help readers as they get all the data on a single page. --Princekapoor (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have this [[1]], and the non-OAuth login providers listed strike me as non-notable Piboy51 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 25 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles LaDuca

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After I got rid of the unsourced and self-sourced content there's not much left except for a couple of brief directory-type listings. Nothing substantial was turned up in a search for additional WP:GNG sources. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, effectively an unsourced biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources yielded only passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent evidence of notability in legal profession. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (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. Nakon 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Poulton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journalist is non-notable. Sources are predominantly primary sources and/or closely connected to subject. Creator of article may have a conflict of interest by being related to subject. Penbat (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deleted really useless info like she has a daughter and where subject went to elementary school already. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to add that it reads to me like a promotional CV.--Penbat (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The current citations as I found them are an utter train wreck of tabloid journalism and Legacypac is absolutely right to strip the stuff out that completely violates WP:BLP, but nevertheless her presence across BBC Radio alone gives me confidence I can salvage a proper biography with good sources out of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use better sources, but the fact that she has a live show on TV should be notable enough in its own right. We are talking BBC, not "KRAP"/AM radio/local cable access. Certainly she seems to have stirred up some controversy, and that carries some notability as well. It could stand improvement in tone, and be less promotional. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She does not have a TV show, live or otherwise. She has sporadically appeared as a guest on BBC radio programs and has in the past appeared as a guest on ITV TV shows such as "This Morning" when debating with Katie Hopkins.--Penbat (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think I could be charitable enough to say that calling Poulton a "zebra in a wig" is "debating". ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see my error - her live show "Sonia Poulton Live" Was on The_People's_Voice_(internet_TV_station). Even so, her various appearances in other media are still enough to retain the page in an improved form. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And assuming that said TV station is actually notable (I'm surprised it is), it means we can't simply redirect Poulton to the Daily Mail, which would be my option #2, which kind of cements a keep vote. Even so, I would really really like all traces of the Mail obliterated as sources if at all possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: The original article was a bit of a mess, but there's been some good work done on it and I think there are enough good sources now to demonstrate notability. Squinge (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Tentative based on the two comments below - will see how it goes in the 7 days. Squinge (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just removed a couple of blatant errors/exaggerations from the intro claiming she is a broadcaster and she has worked for international organizations. Quite honestly, once you strip away the hype she is quite a marginal journalist, occasionally writing columns as a freelancer for UK national newspapers and occasionally making guest appearances on UK TV and radio shows. Just deleted another unsupported statement "contributed to The Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 for THREE years" - Poulton does not even claim this on her own website. --Penbat (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more cleanup on the article. I have noticed the more I dig into sources, the more controversy and criticism I'm uncovering. If Poulton herself wanted the article gone per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I could support that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its heroic for you to do so much work but it looks to me more a goner than before. I have just cleaned up several bits of blatant hype I wasnt aware of when I raised the AFD. Some of the remaining material remains dubiously sourced eg from Poultons own website.--Penbat (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one - but thankyou as well for your improvements to the article. I haven't fixed everything yet, though I believe everything I haven't swept through ie: the Mail and her own site is tagged as ^{[failed verification]} or ^{[better source needed]} (and if it isn't, please tag it). I would say her own site is okay for basic information like her full name, alma mater and basic dates of employment though per WP:SELFPUB that's about all you can do. Still, I have now learned a new insult - "zebra in a wig", and if nothing else, that's worth taking away from this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There must be hundreds of journalists at Poulton's level who dont have a Wikipedia entry. Just to pick an example at random, as she happens to get a mention in the article - Shona Sibary https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22shona+sibary%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hh25VIH8LMzqUvXGgMAC She has also appeared on "This Morning" and has provoked controversy - so have countless other people.--Penbat (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I agree that the subject of the article is a lightweight that does not meet any of our notability guidelines. None of the 24 sources listed represents substantial coverage; they are either routine, tangential, trivial or do not meet the requirements of our sourcing policies. Even taken together, and together with the similar sources I found in my own web searches, they don't add up to much, at all. She is simply too minor a figure in the British journalistic world to merit a stand-alone article, and even less significant on a global scale. Nothing worth merging or saving. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakeha Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political party that never registered, incorporated or did anything at all. Haminoon (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Has proven to be even less notable than at the time of last nomination for Afd. Clearly a transient media beatup with no ongoing SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that "even less notable than at the time of the nomination" is an invalid argument according to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Schwede 66 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The media coverage was limited to a few weeks, but this is probably true for many notable events. As there are no new facts since the last discussion, I do not see a need to delete the article. Inwind (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not a notable political party. Mattlore (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, basically non-existent microparty cum facebook page. This supposed party has never registered as a political party, has never run a candidate for office, and basically fell off the national radar after a brief stint in the limelight in July 2013. Maybe they would have become notable or influential if they had defined themselves as a lobbying or pressure group, but by pretending to be a political party they lost any claim to legitimacy. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (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. While Robert W.W. Zorg's comments are appreciated, they do not provide proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of the University of Bucharest: Political Science Series

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously deleted by prod, with the following rationale: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." I figure that still holds true, and should prompt a second, more permanent deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Um, it's a well known Romanian political science journal with almost a century-long history, and existing in its current form since 1999. Its editorial board includes some of the most famous European political scientists alive, such as Donatella della Porta. I also guess the rather frivolous claims above do NOT hold true. What's "non-independent" about România Liberă or an independently written history book about the university written by independent scholars? Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the journal meet the criteria spelled out at WP:NJournals? Is it indexed in any selective databases?
- The references in their current form are pretty worthless:
  - What is the title of the România Liberă article and who is the author?
  - What page numbers in the Berciu-Drăghicescu book mention the journal, and in what context? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, help! Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the orginal PRODder and didn't notice that this had been re-created a week after it had been re-created (it also wasn't tagged for the academic journals wikiproject, so this didn't turn up in the article alerts either). Nothing has changed since I placed the PROD a few weeks ago. The "keep" rationale above is without merit: "it's a well known Romanian political science journal" (no sources that confirm this); "Its editorial board includes some of the most famous European political scientists alive" (WP:NOTINHERITED, there has been a longstanding consensus in the academic journals wikiproject that editorial board members should not even be mentioned in an article about a journal, unless there are reliable sources that discuss their role in the journal's editorial policy and such. That it is mentioned in a book on the history of the university is not surprising either, I imagine that such a book would mention all kinds of trivia that are not notable otherwise. In short, there's not a shred of notability here. Thanks Drmies for bringing this to my attention! --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Days Of Confusion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC. The article has no sources, and I found none when searching in English and in Romanian, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 25 January 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westmark School (Encino)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pure advertising, horrendous use of meaningless buzzwords, for an insignificant private school. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encino, California per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oops my bad I wasn't aware it was a high school which are actually kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, our regular practice is to keep articles about high schools, and redirect those about most elementary and middle schools. This school teaches students through 12th grade so is a high school, and has been operating for decades. "Westmark+School"+Encino&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YqvEVOnMGYyOyASljIDIBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA Here is coverage of the school in a book.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . We have to keep this in order to stay true to our precedent as documented ar WP:OUTCOMES. I've reduced the article to its basics by editing out all the promotioal puff. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverwolf Comics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Company does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe WP:BEFORE would show enough notability. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Before is not notability guideline or criteria, as for the suggestions in WP:Before I have looked for reliable sources and came up with nothing except others wikis, blogs and a comic book store called Silverwolf comics and collectables. At this point I am asking for proof this is notable as per WP:N or WP:NCORP. Just because a couple of notable people worked there does not mean the company is notable, notability is not inherited.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It existed (albeit for two years) and it has some association with notable persons, but I don't see where any of that translated into actual coverage for the company. All I can find are brief mentions in relation to the notable artists ("so-and-so did stuff for Silverwolf Comics before doing this" type of stuff) but none of it is in-depth and it's rarely more than a brief mention in a sentence about a lot of places where the artist had worked. Notability is not inherited by an artist working for a company (WP:NOTINHERITED) and then going on to do notable things in their career, especially if their work at Silverwolf never gained any attention in RS, which appears to be the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (consult) @ 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is verified, because it is completely unsourced and has been for many years. In a search for sources, all I found was mentions on obscure blogs and a small market in collectibles. This company never produced any comics notable enough to have a page here, and its claimed association with notable employees or artists fails both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:Verifiability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Thurston

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician who primarily writes for advertisements, and hasn't really made much of an impact. This article is probably an autobiography. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Artists and song titles never appear on UK adverts so he's pretty much unknown, Anyway per nom no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sources which rise to WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 17 February 2015 (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 merge to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012. Consensus appears to be to merge the 6 articles and to trim the table coding. v/r - T P 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 2012 Hong Kong legislative election in New Territories East

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A table of opinion pollings of 2012 Hong Kong election in one area. It violates WP:IINFO, and there has been no replies on proposed merged which I initiated. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now if we're discussing one of the constituencies, than the same should apply for all the others, so I'm also nominating the following related pages:

I'm currently unsure whether to keep or to delete. On the one hand, this is very detailed data on single constituencies. If we'd added this kind of data for all constituencies of every single election worldwide, then we'd have to cope with unmanageable, hardly verifiable masses of data. On the other hand it seems like there was quite some media coverage even on the single constituencies, so it might be justifiable, given the importance for the Hong Kong people. Also, it's not fun to destroy the authors' work if unsure. We might want to refine our notability guidelines to avoid that much work being done to be possibly deleted later. --PanchoS (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These articles were split from Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 due to article size. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but even then it could have been decided to delete the opinion poll tables – not in an AfD discussion, but be anyone questioning notability, due weight etc. Here we have the opportunity to comprehensively discuss all aspects before possibly taking action. --PanchoS (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect with history to Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 or another relevant article per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 Creating this new article would bring it in line with Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 etc. Number 57 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - All of those articles are completely unreferenced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jax 0677: Which articles? Number 57 22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - The six articles being recommended for deletion on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jax 0677: As far as I can see, every individual poll in the tables in all six articles are referenced with a link to the poll results (rather than an inline citation). Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015 is referenced in the same way. Number 5 7 08:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we are going to keep the material, the six articles should be kept separate, as merging them would push the size of the combined material over 300 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jax 0677: Having had a quick look at the coding of the tables, they could very easily be slimmed down, as the majority of the code is totally redundant. As an example, I removed a lot of unnecessary coding in these edits, which reduced the size of the table by almost 38KB. Repeat x 6 and it's a reduction of almost 230KB. As a result, article size should not be a problem. Number 5 7 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this is the case, then all we need to do is create inline citations to prevent link rot. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Golick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this person has lasting notability. Everything in this article has to do with him doing his job Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It seems that he was a fine person and not unknown in the open source community, but WP:ANYBIO needs a "widely recognized contribution". Unfortunately I don't think contributions like the Ruby on Rails libraries were covered widely enough to qualify under that. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lots of podcasts call themselves "Real Talk". For example here we have "Todd & Larry, 2 west coast dudes", and "Adam & Koko/Rambling with Ryan", etc. Pax 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm seeing a large number of ghits across a pretty wide spectrum of topics. I can't point to any subset that would definitely establish notability, but I think someone who is more connected with the rails community might be able to make a good case here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—James made contributions the MRI (the main ruby virtual machine) ^[1], additionally he made contributions to Google's tcmalloc a rather notable project. He gave many talks around the world on a variety of topics in computer science and engineering ^[2]. And finally he was an advocate for Women working in open source - devoting time to mentoring women entering the generally male dominated world of open source. All of these I believe point to him being widely recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGaudet (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete - The only reliable source I see is his obituary. ~KvnG 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Links
- Hacker News
- Medium (written by Founder/CEO of Quirky and one of Forbes "America's Most Promising CEOs Under 35")
- Reddit ("Rubyist and mod of this sub")
- "The James Golick Grant for Women in Computology" (referenced from this blog, which also has several other links to obituaries/tributes. However, the grant was actually started by his family, so not in itself contributing to notability or independent sourcing)
- AlleyWatch (was to present at "New York Tech Meetup")
- The Province obituary (previously mentioned)

50.153.132.140 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RELIABLE and let me know which of these you believe qualify. ~KvnG 14:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 16 February 2015 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete, by this message in my user talk page: "Hi Anthony. Could you give me some more information on why the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children page has been deleted? There already is a Dutch page on the Rapporteur. As human trafficking occurs around the world, it is good to know that there is a Rapporteur in the Netherlands dealing with cases like human trafficking or sex tourism. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwp600 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Wikipedia page is nl:Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This review of the organization at ECPAT UK gives a history... the organization seems to be appointed/supported by the Dutch government, but set up deliberately to be independent, to have world-wide impact consistent with human rights push from European Convention on Human Rights and a 1997 European Union agreement in The Hague, etc. So I am not sure what kind of entity it is exactly, whether a charitable nonprofit or a quasi-governmental agency. More than 10 years old, has had big impact apparently, its reports include 9 annual type reports and specialized others. Seems clearly notable. As should also be the 2004-founded Finnish counterpart and the British, 1990-founded ECPAT UK organization. Try broader searching and try searching in Nederlands language:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also I haven't translated the Dutch wikipedia article, has anyone else read it?

--do ncr am 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The search on "Dutch Rapporteur" in "books" quickly yields significant coverage, e.g. in Critical Perspectives on Child Sexual Exploitation and Related Trafficking, by Pearce Jenny J Melrose Margaret, published by Palgrave MacMillan in 2013 (see this Google excerpt) and Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade by Janice G. Raymond, 2013 (see this other Google excerpt which happens to mention critically some shortfall of the Dutch Rapporteur). There's more. --do ncr am 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dutch office roughly analogous to other national reporters such as the US Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Satisfies GNG with coverage such as [2] and [3]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 25 January 2015 (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 List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. This is going on way too long. Admins, just because it's easier doesn't mean you should hit "relist" three times when there's been more than enough comments on the discussion. Someone needs to actually take action on this and it might as well be me. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, part of a sprawling series of embassy articles with no third party sources to establish notability. Similar AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare.

Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on the same basis as the other AFD and in line with consensus there. These all duplicate information already available at List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Very little of the information from these articles would be worth merging (like the street addresses of non-notable buildings). St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. At the very least, the sources in the respective articles can be used in the list article, which presently has only one source. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a merger or redirect would not be consistent with the other AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No REAL information. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania as somewhat plausible search terms. Redirects are cheap anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ṫ Ḧ ^{the fury of the nature}_{given flesh} 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all because there's no real information, although I don't see why these couldn't warrant their own articles. I mean, there are lots of articles like Embassy of France, London, for example. If each of these were expanded with just a bit of real information and some photos, they could justify their existence. Liam987 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wade

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reads very promo like now, not sure if he meets notability yet? Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Being a contestant on a reality TV show does not confer notability. Currently unsourced. Willing to reconsider if sources giving significant coverage are provided not connected to his appearance on the show. Cowlibob (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article undoubtedly needs a lot of work, however, it is salvageable. I believe placing in the top 8 of arguably the largest music competition in the United States satisfies WP:MUSIC, specifically 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. It really doesn't get much bigger as far as music competition's are concerned, and if you look at [[Category:The Voice (TV series) contestants]] you will see that most of the artists were kept on Wikipedia solely for their notability on The Voice. Not to mention charting on the iTunes top 100 on more than one occasion. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@War wizard90: I've read that bit to mean that they medalled in the competition i.e top 3 or were finalists. I can't comment on the WP:OTHERSTUFF and can only discuss whether this article is notable in itself. Cowlibob (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Well it doesn't clearly say if it means you need to place in the top 3, top 3 in a smaller music competition may be less prestigious than top 10 in a competition as large as The Voice. However, I guess that is for the community to decide. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. No references. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as the article is completely lacking references. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (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. Sandstein 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu language book publishing companies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of no informational value, spam bait, categories should be used instead. kashmiri ^TALK 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed: spam-bait, and it appears to be proliferating already.-- Pax 11:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP is not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable index of articles per WP:LISTPURP grouped by a significant shared feature. All we have so far are completely invalid arguments for deletion. We do not delete articles just because editors may add inappropriate content, such as spam (see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:NOTCLEANUP), and regardless it's laughable to think that the addition of a half dozen nonnotable listings over a three and a half year history (since removed by the nominator) pose too big a problem for us to monitor. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It clearly does as we've had spam here since 2013 [4] [5] that I removed only yesterday, so fails the maintenance criteria. The list also badly fails WP:LC for another reason: it is not realistic to list even a fraction of all the companies in India (1.3 billion people) and Pakistan (190 million) which have ever printed something in Urdu (lists of infinite items are not allowed). kashmiri ^TALK 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, spam since 2013? It's a wonder our servers are still running! I kid, but seriously that's not a deletion argument at all nor even a shocking state of article disrepair compared to what we routinely encounter. And no, it isn't realistic to list all the companies in India and Pakistan which have ever printed something in Urdu. Thankfully, we are not the yellow pages, but instead can and do limit such lists of companies to only notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "we can"??? Can you show how this article was "maintained" since 2013? How got there are no large publishers here, like Penguin Books, HarperCollins, etc.? The article has nil informational value and is purely a spam bait. As such, it is not maintained nor maintainable. kashmiri ^TALK 10:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've now tacked on WP:NOEFFORT and WP:TOOLITTLE to your earlier WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:CLEANUP "arguments". Keep going, maybe you'll get to WP:NOBODYREADSIT, or simply say it's WP:UGLY.
You just helped maintain it by removing those entries. And if they're restored, we revert again. If it develops into edit warring or involves multiple IPs/editors, we may block editors or protect the article. You've been here long enough to be familiar with that process, and with WP:ATD (and you certainly can't argue this is a "severe case" alluded to in that policy section). This is hardly the only list of companies we have, and most at one time or another face spam and we deal with it when we detect it. We do not delete articles because of fixable problems. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think it's possible to say that there should be a place to put these publishers. If spam and names without articles are a problem, then the obvious thing to do is convert it to a category (WP:AOAC). On the other hand, red links are listed as an advantage of lists because they show articles that need to be created (WP:AOAL). Advantages and disadvantages to both. We have a long List of English-language book publishing companies, and they are all blue links. List of Romanian-language publishers is almost all red links. Usually we group publishers by country, but Urdu is both India and Pakistan, so do we need something by language? Or is it enough to list publishers in India and Pakistan? – Margin1522 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmiri's comment above that many worldwide publishers such as Penguin may qualify for this list is a good reason why this wouldn't be synonymous with the country lists (even if there aren't many notable ones in India that don't publish in Urdu). And WP:CLN notwithstanding, the inclusion of worldwide publishers is also the best argument against making this into a category, as we'd end up with the largest publishers categorized by every major language on earth (see WP:OCAT). postdlf (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly legitimate article subject, no difficulty to improve the article. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No appropriate rationale for deletion, has fixable issues. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:42, 25 January 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Jamie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a reporter with only a couple of closely connected and trivial references. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources that cover the subject in detail. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 04:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation - article doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 9 February 2015 (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KZD-85

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, badly written affair that seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are given here:

As only total 60 of this KZD drohnes where ever build and the swiss air force is the only operator of (now 30) of them it is not so easy to find informations about it. But it is still in use since nearly 30 years and will be used by the swiss air force for the next 5 years, it is an importent factor. So Keep it. FFA P-16 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are independent, reliable, prior published sources. The two you give here fail both on that point as the first one is from the Swiss Air Force itself and the second is a forum. The Banner talk 12:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The swiss air force home page is the best one, first hand informations.. and don't say this is promo.. this could you may say if the information would be from the homepage of the Farner Werke who build it, but not of the swiss air force page, the swiss air force don't try to sell it. I had writen this page i have given this two refrences, this 2 are enough also in the german wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author of this article is a Swiss Air force enthusiast whose Wikipedia competence not always matches their enthusiasm. However, a cursory Google Books search shows that this UAV has been covered as much as one would expect a 1980s weapons system to be covered in military publications, including Jane's All the World's Aircraft, p. 418, and World unmanned aircraft, p. 73. Sandstein 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible, possible. But a copy of your text as external links is of course not a source. The Banner talk 17:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandstein, i add the informations you brought up here into the article. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well a printet source is well enough It don't has to be a online source. But here we have the link who shows that the printet one realy exist. And Jane's All the World's Aircraft is well known as reliable. So we have this Book and the Swiss Air Force Homepage.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sandstein has established the notability of the topic. Kudos to User:FFA P-16 for getting the page started. Andrew D. (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2015 (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WIKI guideline, reliable reference sources untraceable, subject was just a senior employee and he no longer work with the mentioned co emami too, the article was discussed earlier at AFD and wrongly misunderstood the subject as N. Venkat , Couple of people with the name N.Venkat are referred while ref search; one of them is also a management professor but not the same or relate to the subject mentioned in the article. One life to live (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (banter) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -One life to live, Hi, how did you know he was 'just a senior employee' and now 'no longer works' with Emami Co.? If he is not "N. Venkat", who is he then? I've just finished off my basic online research on subject, and it appears to me that they really are "N. Venkat" and the former CEO of Emami Co. The article was created in 2008 by an editor as, "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu is the Chief Executive Officer of Emami House[..]", and then we see contemporary reliable sources that say, "N. Venkat is the CEO of the Emami House". Doesn't it suggest they both are the same person with latter being short form of lengthy one? The only case may be here that Mr. N. Venkat's full name may not be "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu". However, if we look at one self-published source, it confirms their name as "Venkateswarlu Nelabhotla". Creator wanted to create an article about CEO of Emami house, -and that was N. Venkat that time (primary source). Did I miss something?

With all these findings, the only valid question now survives in-here is that, is Mr. N. Venkat eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia? I think, yes, for they have been discussed in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG?), such as The Hindu, Business-Standard, Business-Standard2, Financial Express, Economic Times, VCCircle, Moneycontrol^{may be unreliable!}, Businesstoday, Business-Standard, Deccan Herald, Daily Excelsior, etc. With all these coverage of subject in the Indian daily English newspapers, if there are even half of this coverage in Indian daily Hindi and other languages newspapers (doesn't sound plausible?), subject easily qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Again please let me know if I'm missing something. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupmehra (talk · contribs)Hi, I also got the similar search results and few more as mentioned earlier about N. Vekat (professor) . Firstly subject was a senior employee i.e.“CEO" with Emami, after that he moved to Birla wellness and now looks like he started his own co. Vyome Biosciences. This is what the multiple coverage (also shared by you above) provide the information about the subject. This made me question about the Notability of the subject. The point what I am trying to make is “Yes" he was a CEO of one company and now co founder CEO of his own company and we do have sufficient coverage for this but what significant work the subject has done making him notable enough ? Just being a CEO of a company is notable enough ? I could not trace any coverage to answer this concern, hence requested this discussion.One life to live (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India is home to at least 1.22 bn people, therefore it is very likely that a name would be shared between many people. Not only in here but in many fairly smaller countries too, a name is shared between many. So, there may be many "N. Venkat" around. It is not a problem however, if professor N. Venkat turns out to be notable for inclusion, we'll create them an article titled "N. Venkat (professor)".

We do not really look for what a person has done or accomplished in their field, but just were they written about in detail in multiple reliable sources independent of them?, that's just it. We assume that they must have done something notable that brought them coverage in many mainstream reliable sources independent of them. I find it irony in terms of TV actors, what the hell impact they have made on society and civilization that they are on Wikipedia. But, you know, coverage, -that's just what Wikipedia looks for and it further discourages editors doing their own research. If it answers your question, you may withdraw your nomination or wait for other editors comment (I'm suggesting withdraw just to save the community time). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupmehra (talk · contribs) Plz don’t get confused with the professor N Venkat it was referred in context to the first nomination in which subject N Venkat was referred as management guru and concluded to keep the article. To save on that I made a note that other N Venkat are also present which should not be misunderstood to the subject under this discussion. I have a different view point with ref to your comment on TV actor I think they are part of wiki cos they are notable because of individual accomplishments and mentioned information is supported by reliable sources. I don’t think just any TV actor is part of wiki without meeting the guidelines. Coming to the initial discussion you have not answered how the subject is notable ? or is it the company Emami / Vyome Biosciences ? in any case I could not find any mention which makes the subject or the referred company adding to the notability of subject. The intention is not to waste community time but to make wikipedia better I am sure that’s what we all want isn’t it ?One life to live (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait! I didn't answer the basic question, how subject qualifies for inclusion.. Again, they merit a Wikipedia article because they have been published in multiple WP:SECONDARY, independent and reliable sources and thus meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG -notability guidelines (please see sources provide above or in the article for the coverage). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wear

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am submitting this article for deletion. As far as I can tell, this does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability - specifically, WP:ANYBIO which states:

Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

Since no other Mr. World Canada has a Wikipedia article, there is nothing noteworthy about Ron Wear that makes an article on him worthy for inclusion. His passing relationship with Tara Teng seems to be the only reason an article was created for him in the first place, as the only page linking to him is the page for Tara Teng. However, to quote again from WP:BIO, Ron Wear's vague association with Ms. Teng does not confer notability onto him.

That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.

The sources cited to form the bulk of this article are superfluous at best. For example, footnote [9], which states that Ron Wear is an active swimmer and yoga practitioner. Not only is this information irrelevant (under the guidelines at WP:NOTE), but it fails to meet the criteria on diversity of sources. The article reads, in its current form, as a promotional biography of a former beauty pageant winner who has accomplished nothing to make him worthy of a Wikipedia entry.

69.158.90.116 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that Ron Wear is apparently the only winner from this particular pageant with his own Wikipedia page tells me that simply being a pageant winner does not create notability, as if it did there would likely be other similar pages. Further, the article does not provide any evidence for Mr. Wear's distinctiveness from other winners of the same pageant, as it mostly discusses events he participated in after winning and it is incredibly likely that none of these events are out of the ordinary for such a winner or have any kind of historical merit that require documentation. Finally, as noted in the original move for deletion, the majority of the article is dedicated to documenting Wear's professional relationship with another pageant winner. This also tells me that Mr. Wear does not have significant notability as if he did his article would not have to be padded with irrelevant information about the fact that he once met another pageant winner, especially as any rational person would be able to assume that he has likely met other pageant winners and this does not need to be documented. Essentially the page reads like it was either a.) written by Mr. Wear's publicist or b.) Written by Ms. Teng's publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, winner of major competition, Mr. World Canada 2010. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion regarding the status of the article at this time, but Mr. World Canada is not the highest tier of that particular competition: it is the Canadian qualifiers for Mister World. I am dubious that the national title is sufficient in and of itself to confer notability (and have not evaluated the subject to determine if notability has been otherwise demonstrated). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Admin--please don't decide on this until CU etc. have run their course at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the newspaper articles cited there appears to be significant coverage of this individual in ten secondary sources. If in the future a "List of Mr. World Canada winners" is written, and if this individual has not by then achieved notability for other events, then there is a potential to redirect this article to there, but for the time being at least I think there is enough independent coverage to justify maintaining the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. World Canada, which already has some of the same content. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think it matters so much that no other winner has an article. That could just be because no one has gotten around to creating one. But winning Mr. World Canada doesn't seem to have generated that much coverage. Most of the sources in the article are fairly trivial one-line mentions. The best ones were from his agency and the TV station where he hosted a show, but those aren't independent. And I couldn't find any other good ones. I think his best shot at notability would be getting some significant acting roles. If that happens, this article could be revived. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing in the article appear to be sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as coverage in reliable third-party sources appears to push this subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. That this is the first Wikipedia article about a winner of this competition is not relevant as somebody has to be first. (Notability is not inherited but nor is it dependent on the existence of similar articles.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~SERIOUSLY!!! This **** of an article has existed for as long as it has???!!!~~ This former "band" not only fails WP:NBAND, it EPICALLY fails NBAND. Not sure how any AfD could possibly have come to keep, yet evidently AfD #2 did keep after article was previously deleted at the first AfD and then almost immediately recreated. ~~This is as strong a delete as I could possibly ever call for. Just gotta love the content under the 2010 section header, "the band posted an announcement to their website." :)~~ Safiel (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ~~A farcical abomination, for sure.~~ Still not notable and failing WP:NBAND, as pointed out below by Safiel. --The Theosophist (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sometimes a look at article history can be helpful. The article that was kept in January 2009 was much longer than the way it is now, and it actually had some sources. [6] It looks like the article was subjected to unconstructive deletions in 2014, and no one was around to fix it. That is not to say that the band is obviously notable, just that the current version isn't the one that we should be looking at. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Arxiloxos, I've restored all the content from before the unconstructive deletions began in February 2014. This way, the article can be evaluated on its own merits rather than on what it was like after most of the content and sources were stripped out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have gone through the reconstituted article and the links, at least the ones that still work. The band clearly fails all aspects of WP:NBAND from #2 to the end. The only chance for this band to pass through would be to satisfy point #1 of NBAND, which is multiple, non-trivial coverage in qualifying reliable sources. I believe that it clearly fails. Most of these links are trivial listings or mentions of "gigs" and several of the links are not reliable sources. I see nothing which would cause this band to satisfy WP:NBAND. Thus I will stick with my original delete position, though I will tone down my rhetoric from the nomination a bit. Safiel (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mildly reluctant weak deleteNeutral (see below). HighBeam Research includes a couple of Liverpool papers, and this band's name turns up in some concert listings from 2007-2010, but nothing more substantial in those sources.[7] Google searches turned up a ton of blogs and listings like this, making it hard to be sure if there's something more substantial buried in the dross. There's a substantial interview [8] in a source called the Von Pip Musical Express (VPME), a bloggy site that may or may not be an RS (it shows up as a source in other Wikipedia articles and has been profiled in The Guardian [9], so maybe the author qualifies as some kind of expert in the area). In the last Afd, Paul Erik turned up a surprising bit of praise for this band in The Charleston Gazette--that's Charleston, West Virginia, and while the comment itself is just one sentence, the existence of something like this in an American daily newspaper does suggest that the band had wider notability than you'd expect from a run of the mill Scouse pub band. (The Gazette article is included in the HighBeam database, although for some reason it didn't come up in my HighBeam searches of the band's name. [10]) Overall it seems that we have local Merseyside band that had a run of local popularity and kept threatening to get bigger, but didn't. If someone else can turn up another decent substantial source or two, I'd reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the mentioned The Charleston Gazette article (in a "Top songs" subsection)

"5. "You Won't Get Much Sleep," Alexis Blue: This is a great, catchy indie pop track that pulls inspiration from other English bands like the Coral."

The writer of the article is Sarah Nason from George Washington High School.

Also available is a hometown piece. Cureton, Stephanie (26 September 2010), "Farewell gig for Wirral rockers Alexis Blue later this week", Wirral Globe

Most relevant quote may be

"Alexis Blue formed in 2005 while attending Mosslands School and quickly built up a strong fanbase thanks to their catchy numbers and regular appearances around Wirral and Liverpool."

Looks like they had some local popularity but never got bigger. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after looking through the sources the band appears to have "lost" some notability after their disbandment however since notability cannot be lost the prior AfD has some resonance. I was able to find this source and noticed it has other sources in its heyday that are not readily available due to overshadowing by a separate artist Alexi Blue. The band appears to pass WP:band on 5, 7, and 12. The band has released at least two albums hypothetical situations and a second album (Sir Ian)^3. The band had a prominent local following, and appeared on the television show Road to V Finals. Since our BLP and band notability requirements are heavily based on self promotion this would not apply due to their disbandment. Per prior AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just releasing albums is not enough to pass WP:BAND, no indication any releases are on an important label. Whilst they had a local following there is no indication it's prominent, let alone "the most prominent of the local scene of a city". especially as Wirral is not a city. Appearing on a tv show does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#12. ~~A thoroughly disingenuous !vote?~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on your AfD of Moxie Raia, such personal attacks are uncalled for we can disagree on subjects on Wikipedia. I've made my rational clearly and it is far from being disingenuous. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An unusually high percentage of the citations in this article are dead links. That doesn't mean they are invalid sources, because the articles they are citing could have been taken down in the last six years or so, but it would be nice if the supporters of this article could do something about all the dead link citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "indie guitar rock coupled with lyrics" you say? No evidence this even comes close to meeting WP:MUSIC; while they might have had a few local fans and been a nice group of people, they clearly don't have the coverage needed to show notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have found some additional sources, [11], [12], [13], second album and an interview here. Lankiveil can you please clarify how this does not pass WP:MUSIC? It appears to pass 5, 7, and 12 of WP:BAND. Per WP:NTEMP is band should remain notable even if many links are dead now due to their disbandment. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation is due for Valoem's heroic efforts on behalf of this band. Regarding the new sources: the Skiddle writeup looks a lot like PR, although the reference to a Channel 4 broadcast has some interest. The Unsigned.com page isn't a sign of notability in itself, but the quotes from reviews in 3 countries, like the West Virginia newspaper above, could be suggestive of something a little bigger than a local pub band. The Wirrall News item does verify the existence of the album, but doesn't do much to get past "local popularity". I had already mentioned the last one, the VPME interview, in my comment above. I am still not convinced that this band surpasses the AfD threshhold usually applied to indie bands, but I wouldn't be bothered if this article were kept, and (if only for symbolic reasons) I've switched my !vote to "neutral".--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as an indie music fan myself I try to keep these bands whenever I think there is a sniff of notability, but I'm not seeing it here. Specifically, they don't meet #5 of WP:BAND as none of their music has been released on a major label or important indie label as far as I can tell. #7 doesn't apply because there is no reliable sources that describe them as such, and with respect to the Wallasey scene, it's not a large or important one. For #12, I presume you refer to their appearance on "Road to V", but they did not win the competition, nor were they the "featured subject", so that doesn't apply either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 25 January 2015 (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 merge to University of Split. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, if subsequent discussion or bold activity so determines, this is not to be taken as a bar to the article being improved and kept separate. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://intranet.fesb.hr/Default.aspx?alias=intranet.fesb.hr/english and http://intranet.fesb.hr/english/AboutFESB/History/tabid/1046/Default.aspx, but its author (User:Spodrug) says in Talk:Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split that he is the dean of the organization that this article describes and has the right to put this matter on his faculty's web page as well as on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges indicates that individual faculties are notable only in exceptional circumstances. I am not seeing anything here to indicate that this is one such case: it appears to have an unremarkable history. Nor should Wikipedia be hosting material about their taught course content. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How widespread is the acceptance of the linked article? I couldn't verify that it was part of the actual WP:guidelines, it's not part of WP:PGLIST, and it wasn't tagged with {{subcat guideline}}, so I tagged it as an essay. The discussions about its status from over five years ago indicate some level of consensus and some acrimony. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. FESB is a reasonably generally notable faculty, it's kind of like the Split equivalent of FER in Zagreb. A Google Books search (~300 hits) indicates their general notability. Mainstream newspapers in Croatia outside of Split cover it occasionally Večernji list ~60 hits, Jutarnji list ~1300 hits. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Split. Faculty appears to have no independent notability, I may change my vote if more sources are found. AadaamS (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is a course catalog, nor does it appear that the faculty, as a unit, is notable. The article is SPA-created, so it may be a beachhead for creating articles on some/all of the faculty. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Merge, at least for now, for similar reasons to AadaamS. George8211 / T 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's some content here worth merging; independently this outfit is not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is cleaned, study programs deleted, and just one clarification Faculties in Croatia are legal entities, and as you can see in this article Faculty was one of the founders of the University of Split and not vice versa. Also, there are already Wikipedia pages of a number of Croatian faculties from University of Zagreb, Osijek,...Spodrug (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Spodrug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - It would appear, Faculties do not work in the same way in Croatia. This is an independent entity that had a history before the University of Split existed.A merge would be inappropriate. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can confirm that the creator of the page is the dean of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture in Split (FESB), Croatia. Moreover, he is the most relevant person to create wikipage about this Faculty, which is one of the most recognizable institutions in a domain of technical sciences in Croatia. Best regards, Damir Lelas PhD, Vice Dean for Education (FESB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) 10:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability; fails WP:BRANCH. Pax 11:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRANCH simply does not apply, as this is not a local unit of a larger organization. Both this organization and its hierarchical parent have the exact same geographical scope. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With about 2500 students and cca 250 employees the Faculty is among largest, by many parameters the largest, constituents of the University of Split and has, as it was mentioned above, history before the University of Split and has separate legal entity. Therefore, we think that the Faculty should have its own wikipage. The significance and notability of the Faculty for the City of Split and Split-Dalmatia County is unquestionable. Anyone who lives there can confirm that. If total population of Split is 178102 (Wikipedia) and the Split-Dalmatia County is 454798 (Wikipedia), just by number of students enrolled one can see the point. These numbers in a global context are not big, but for Croatia and specially for the region of Croatia called Dalmatia suggest unquestionable notability of the Faculty. The webpage in Croatian www.fesb.hr according to Google Analytics in 2014 had 899606 pageviews, 445271 sessions and 97505 users. Facebook page www.facebook.hr/fesb.hr has 4523 likes. No to go in details, but scientific, professional and teaching output of the Faculty is by all parameters significant on Croatian and in some aspects on international level. Just as a fact, as it was also touched at this place, there are existing wikipages for other faculties in Croatia that are rather smaller than FESB. Concerning the quantity and relevance of the text itself, it should and will be improved.Damir.lelas (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)— Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info: [14] - Some of FESB students' achievements:
- DREAMSPARK LEARNING AWARD at Imagine Cup 2013 - World finals, [15], Project Authink [16]
- Association of applied engineering(AAE/UPS), [17]
- First and third prize at Shift Hackathon [18], [19], [20]

Damir.lelas (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A locally notable faculty - unlike most (if not all) other faculties of the University of Split. WP:GNG seems to be met. The article's current size - compared with the size of the suggested target - is not really conducive to the merge. GregorB (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Newton (illustrator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is for an illustrator at the US Department of Agriculture. Seems to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Sources do not appear to give more than passing mentions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that this artist fit under point (4) of the WP:ARTIST guideline because her work is part of a special collection formed by the U.S. government. Her work is not available for wide circulation to other museums and collections, but it is part of a group of works that have been singled out as notable by the curators who formed the collection and have been discussed in various papers and books on agricultural history. This article can certainly be improved, but I feel it is premature to delete it. (N.B. I am new to AfD and just realized I need to indicate that I am the article's creator.) Valli Nagy 15:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValliNagy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is her work is part of a special collection formed by the U.S. government, it was exhibited at both the Tennessee Centennial Exposition and the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Her work and that of other women botanical artists appears to be discussed in Made from this Earth: American Women and Nature (University of North Carolina Press). Unfortunately, only a snippet view is available. It would be helpful if someone can later get hold of the book and add information in it to the article. However, in the meantime, it would be extremely premature to delete this and a net detriment to the encyclopedia. We're talking about someone who lived the first 40 years of her life in the 19th century. Much material from that period is not digitised. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Community Saxophone Ensemble

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a group which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different from any other saxophone place in the world. Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Yap

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a person who does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All sources are listings or primary sources, I can find no WP:RS to establish notability. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a well-known saxophonist in Singapore and is the principal saxophone of Windstars Ensemble, Singapore's top concert band. He is also a lecturer at Singapore Raffles Music College and has founded many pop, jazz and community societies for musicians. Jackchee (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mcmatter This person meets the notability criteria of English Wikipedia Samsobot (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do more the say they meet policies, you need to prove it, with policy based arguments and reliable sources.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mcmatter I have gone through the reference list of the article. The sources are reliable and the person meets the notability criteria Samsobot (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one of the existing, non-independent sources (not sure about the last one as it is in Chinese?) is even about him. Fails GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (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 merge to Catalyst_(software)#History. czar ⨹ 07:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maypole framework

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed this article to be deleted, with the rationale "non-notable dead software project, barely worth a brief mention at Catalyst (software)". Another editor removed the prod with the comment "existing refs sufficient", but that is not true. The refs in the article do not demonstrate notability and my original rationale is still correct. So I'm bringing this to AfD.

Thank you, 176.25.140.245 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page created at request of IP by -- GB fan 12:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree that the available sourcing is insufficient. I can find nothing substantial and independent of the subject. It seems this defunct software was never notable. Reyk _YO! 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The IBM Developerworks cite is a strong one, even though it's a dead link. However, gbooks and gscholar aren't turning up anything else, and given that the project is moribund I don't see a future path forward to notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect. Maypole was the first popular high-level Perl web app framework. In addition to the DeveloperWorks article, there was a secondary RS March 2005 Linux Journal article on the framework. Catalyst (software), a far more popular web framework, started life as a Maypole fork intended to be Maypole 3.0, then went its own way. While there may not be enough RS out there to justify a full article on Maypole, the framework is clearly verifiable in multiple RS and it retains importance as the seed from which Catalyst was built. Merging the first paragraph of this article into the history section of the Catalyst (software) article would be a nice addition to the article and would place Maypole in WP where it is perhaps most historically significant. Maypole framework is a plausible search term, so a redirect is also warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add this information from Maypole article to Catalyst_(software)#History? -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do so, but premature merging before consensus is reached in AfD discussions is discouraged. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk and Lesser Cartographies, any thoughts on JV's position? czar ⨹ 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: No objection. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tan Huan Chun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable person, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All references in article are listings or social media type listings, not reliable. Cannot find any further sources which meet WP:RS. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person works in the music education industry and thus has sources primarily from educational institutions. Although this person may not be extremely notable, he is notable enough to have his own article.Pichu9x (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions are generally, in most cases, not reliable sources. If you can find more reliable sources that show this person is notable for his own article, then the article can stay, but until then, I support deletion. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2015 (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 keep. Per BLP guidelines I will move this to Death of Catherine Cando §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Cando

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable winner of a minor beauty pageant, the deceased and the circumstances of her death have no enduring significance. References mainly consist of magazine and tabloid sources. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Notability assertion for this person appears not for her as a model (wp:NMODEL), but rather the assertion "Cando's death sparked outrage in Ecuador against plastic surgery," supported by 4 references. One could debate about wp:ONEEVENT, maybe? I am not super-informedr with notability guidelines for persons and specific cases like this, but it looks to me to meet general wp:GNG which trumps more specific notability guidelines.

If others think this should not be kept as it is, is there some list-article about accidental deaths from plastic surgery, that this could possibly be merged & redirected to, as an alternative to deletion? Hmm, there is Category:Deaths from plastic surgery complications, but I don't immediately see a list-article. Should List of deaths from plastic surgery complications be created? If kept, the article should link to any such list, too. I'll edit it to include it into that category right now. --do ncr am 21:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the death evidently attracted world-wide attention and thus is notable. Maybe the article should be renamed Death of Catherine Cando, but either way the content should be kept. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (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 keep. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1 (board game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. References include a picture of the game, a blog, and a chat forum posting. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Game is historic dating from 1962; the time before the internet. One can be certain that there was plenty of coverage in reliable, paper sources at the time even if they are not presently available online. -Arb. (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in detail by the V&A. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Board games are usually pretty easy topics to find sources for -- even the old ones -- because of Board Game Geek's community gathering links to various reviews, podcasts, etc. internationally. the entry for this game has none. I found a handful of blog posts, etc. but not enough to pass WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: what about the detailed entry in the collection of the Victoria and Albert museum, which I identified above? Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it's cool that they accepted/kept a bunch of games someone donated, I'm not so sure something existing in museum storage -- with no explanation of its significance and only a basic description -- goes very far. In other words, I can see why it would contribute to something's notability, but doesn't do it on its own and, at least to me, doesn't add enough to push it over a threshold. Not opposed to changing my !vote if a bunch of sources appear, of course, but I did look and did not find them. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The V&A's account of the subject both explains the significance of the item and provides a detailed description, not just a basic one. For example, it explains that "It was a success when released in 1962, and was released in various international editions throughout the next two decades." And it tells us that "Cars are red, green, yellow, black, blue and orange." This is clearly significant coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it's more than a basic description. Even if we call it significant coverage, though, the threshold is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. They may be out there, but I haven't seen them yet. I've updated my !vote to Weak Delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable secondary sources are available. Significant coverage on multiple independent blogs and special-interest sites covering the topic in detail. The product is still available for purchase online, which indicates an active market of buyers and sellers with interest in the topic.
- Daily Telegraph, November 2004: "In the 1970s, many a wet Saturday afternoon could happily be spent in your living room, ... Waddington's Formula 1 - the prince of all board games - on the floor."[21]; April 2005: "Recommended retro purchases: .... Waddington's Formula One board game."[22] Whizz40 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nether of those come close to significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two quotes I picked out. As mentioned above, what is notable is this game has received detailed attention from independent sources which can be collectively significant taken alongside the V&A source. The policy says significant coverage will vary by topic and, following Rhododendrites' guide above, for old board games this often takes the form of easy to find links to various reviews, podcasts, etc:

Updated article with two external links; one of the YouTube videos listed above and a paper using the game in a probability exercise. -Arb. (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article with the points of notability raised so far, per WP:EDITATAFD. Whizz40 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Jain

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an online magazine editor, referenced entirely to primary sources (her own LinkedIn, etc.) with no evidence of any reliable source coverage to indicate that she actually passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. Also possible WP:COI, as the creator has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia on any other topic. She might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article that can be properly written and properly sourced, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if that can be done — but as currently written and sourced, this is barely more than a résumé. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Here are the all sources having less or more coverage of subject, if anyone is wondering about claims made in article, -[23], [24], [25]. Subject at this time is ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia for not meeting required standard, such as -WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources which rise to WP:BASIC --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:42, 17 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Marcus

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about a minor actor. I am unable to find reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 01:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor is not a minor. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samuel-marcus.html shows that he is 19 years old as of yesterday. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovergroover (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator meant minor as in "not major", not minor as in "underage". And famousbirthdays.com is never a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia anyway, so even if this were hinging on age, which again it isn't, that link still wouldn't be relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is extremely recognizable and very well known across the world from appearing on Teens React. The YouTube videos he appears in get over 1 million views each. Here are a few:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGo16GG9qTA (11.765 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWIBXhQrHE4 (2.03 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMKmiPtYYw (7.331 million views)

As well, you can see him on the Bravo website from starring on The People's Couch.

Also states that he is not a minor in this article: http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/photos/the-people-of-peoples-couch/item/10123466 http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/season-2/blogs/the-egbers-show-me-the-funny

Here is an interview he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ_iEqQ5Qso

He has also appeared on high profile TV shows such as Criminal Minds and Key & Peele and films like The Bling Ring.

He definitely fits the criteria. Llbb454 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)llbb454— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His work is all blue inked with the exception of a few short films. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover[reply]

Whether the works he appeared in are blue or red links is irrelevant to whether a person qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our inclusion rules for actors do not grant a freebie to every actor who exists, nor to every actor who appeared as a supporting or guest character in a bluelinked production — it's not the claim of "did X, Y and Z" that gets a person into Wikipedia, but the quality of the sourcing you can provide to support the claim that they did X, Y and Z. But as written, this article is relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence provided that he's garnered the level of reliable source coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly, but this version in its current state is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree with you but I understand your argument. Llbb454 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb44|Llb454[reply]

Also, he is a series regular on both The People's Couch and Teens React. Those are neither guest or supporting. Llbb454 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

No type of role — extra, guest, supporting, regular, star, doesn't matter — in no type of production — film, TV series, web series, doesn't matter — confers an automatic notability freebie on anybody if reliable source coverage about the person themselves isn't present to support the article. What gets a person over WP:NACTOR is not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so you're saying that the YouTube videos that are done by partners of YouTube and the interviews that are listed as sources are not reliable enough to support the claim?Llbb454 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

YouTube videos are never valid sources for anything on Wikipedia, ever. And again, what I said about interviews is that they're acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after the notability has been covered off by sufficient reliable source coverage — but they cannot confer notability if they're the only sources you've got. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples page it says this about YouTube videos: "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

The videos listed as primary sources are from the official YouTube channel of the Fine Brothers, proving that the videos of Samuel on Teens React are reliable primary sources. Also, don't forget that he has gone by the name Sam Egber and Samuel Egber in the past. Some of the sources listed are from the past when he used that last name. I say this is a keep. Llbb454 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

Weak Delete. Minor appearances on cable 'reality' shows and bit parts elsewhere; nominally failing WP:ENT at present. Pax 01:38, 11 February 2015 (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 keep. Nakon 03:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reet Sharma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet WP:GNG criteria, Times of India mentions as just pass by and other website seems like a fan site Shrikanthv (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. I know the sourcing is a bit weak, but I think she looks like a reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Squinge (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported by Times Of India, and Zee Association group. Both of them fairly large companies and fair usage. ~~Keep~~, as far as my suggestion goes. Moderator to finally decide. Tanishqsh (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (Struck Keep as user has apparently upgraded to Strong Keep below and can't have two !votes. Have commented below too Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -Frankly speaking, subject fails WP:GNG (there are all "passing" mentions) and WP:NACTOR (insignificant role).

Subject fails General notability guideline for lacking "significant" coverage (Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.), and WP:NACTOR #1 -for not having substantial roles in whatever films and TV shows they did appear into (if they'd have had been, we were likely to see reliable sources proving the claim. In fact, I've watched all those movies, -in some I just can't remember what role this kid was playing of). Here one should note that just appearing into multiple notable films doesn't make subject notable for inclusion unless they have had "significant" roles in them (see also, WP:BURDEN). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Let's talk!, I agree to your submissions and points put forward, and then I made a point in checking out personally all the projects which are being mentioned here.

I would like you to see once more, and being Indian you might comprehend the difference between a mainstream movie and other class movie. Here, providing some links in order for you to see them and decide onto matter. *Maximum Movie - I looked into this matter and found out that she has portrayed the main lead's daughter along with the Neha Dhupia, Arya Babbar, Naseer etc.

I did try referencing from the tellechakkar's link and found out that she had a significant episode of Gumrah Series - Here is the link : Gumrah Episode 13 Gumrah Episode 13 - The story talked about a girl and its grand-father's bond. You might as well look into the episode to find the significant. I might consider after you looking into this that the content is basically to be Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanishqsh (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Tanishqsh (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is "Anupmehra" and you may now on type {{U|Anupmehra}} to {{ping}} me. I'm not sure why would someone call me, "Let's talk" -that obviously is not my nick on here. Coming to the discussion, I'm still not seeing any sort of reliable sources documenting the so called substantial role in one film and one tv show (two counts multiple?, not sure). You are providing here YouTube and other unreliable sources to make your point. We are not going to do original research -if roles were "some real substantial", why the heck no media out of uncountable in a country of around 1.22 bn population wrote about the same? As I said, in my rationale above -"passing mentions" neither establish GNG nor in this case, prove the claim of substantial roles in multiple films. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anupmehra. Sorry for the previous mention. Yes, in order to make a final call on the statement - I would like you to check the previous mention link thoroughly, the pretext and the content of what it follows. You may find the Coverage: Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Dun? as the source of mentioning the girl as the highlight of their news tally. They have thoroughly discussed about her projects in various films, and shows with even the name mentions. I hope, this proves to be of enough claim to projects she has appeared/worked on. She has been mentioned over different sites like IMDB genre, one such is Movies Buff. I recently got to know about this mention too. Tanishqsh (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tellychakkar, a TV Gossip web-portal, is the only source I am seeing in-here. The reliability of the source is questionable, and afa I can remember we use it to source ordinary claims in Wikipedia articles. Anyway -"one sources neither does make the subject notable" (-per WP:GNG) nor helps to reach another inclusion criteria -that is -"significant roles" in "multiple notable films and tv shows" (WP:NACTOR #1). There are "absolute zero" mainstream reputable sources available on subject that would help them to reach any of the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. And yes, -www.moviebuff.com -is a completely unreliable source, appears to be some typical user-generated site. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Anil, currently a follower of Zee Tv's offering Iss Pyaar Ko kya Naam dun, reached this page after searching for this artist. I suppose this page is regarding this artist's credibility, but she seems to be doing quiet a good work. I am new here, rectify if something is wrong. Anil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniltelevisionbuff (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Aniltelevisionbuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following mentioned points:
Mentioning the link to the Advertisement campaign by official ICICI Bank (ICICI Claim Care) which runs throughout nation's theaters as mentioned.
Same running through nation's theaters in English ICICI Claim Care English. Note: The above are uploaded by their official channels.

In reversing the order of referencing if we find the logicality of getting a same reference makes all for the points. I hope the debate gets to the conclusion as soon as possible. Tanishqsh (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can't have two !votes in the same deletion discussion, so I presume this Strong Keep overrides your original Keep above and have struck the original Keep accordingly. Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I had better reasons to put forward and a strong point and hence better vote. Thanks for the action. Tanishqsh (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Firstly, YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If uploaded by a reliable media, it could be used to cite some basic bibliographical information not to establish notability. All keep !vote here seem to be JUSTAVOTE. No one has been able to provide secondary, independent and reliable sources that discuss subject in detail. That said, being featured in an advertisement (and YouTube links to prove the calim) -is not a valid crietia of inclusion on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your basic understanding, I would like to point out the references made by Times GroupHere, provided before., even if a passer by mentions her in a leading position on the show. Furthermore to concrete that passerby information mentioned in the Times' report - the video evidences have been provided too, along with a b-town news website mentioning about her tooHere, as mentioned before.. So your claim that they are JUSTVOTES do not adhere to its word, since the mentions are duly provided above. Hence, the above mentions along with suitable evidences of reliability of those passerby or a strong evidences mentioned make her reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". ~~Hence, Strong Keep.~~ TheAuthor! (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)--no need to !vote twice. See also, Conflict of Interest guideline.. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanishqsh: -Changed signature to TheAuthor!, nice. Have you ever read the WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guideline? Passing mention doesn't establish notability on Wikipedia (read again). Only one source [26] of questionable reliablity doesn't help meet subject any of Wikipedia's notability guideline. So far, We have two source, one is reliable -have passing mention, second unreliable? source -have decent coverage. The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows." as said by Anupmehra -Let's talk!, If you read closely to what is written in your called, "passing mention" - It is clearly written That the subject will be playing the role of daughter in the new family. And If you reside in India, you can switch on your TV at 5:30 pm Monday to Saturday on Star Plus/HD to watch her play the lead role of daughter(Got this Info from Google, I actually tuned in to see whether if she is there or no, and I found out that she actually plays a lead role). This is for your personal fact clearing. As far as the notability concerned, the second resource, which has decent coverage has mentioned her various works.

For more clearing of facts, I suppose you watch Maximum (film) once - This might clear your facts about her substantial roles. Hence the two mentioned sources also make it eligible for the WP:NACTOR criterion. TheAuthor! (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research. If you show me reliable sources that say what you say then I will happily withdraw my delete !vote. One passing mention, another TV gossip, -would not make subject eligible for NACTOR#1 criteria. Lets make it short, we already have wasted enough time on this. Do you have sources for what you claim subject to be, yes or not? Please don't stretch discussion longer. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my whole point. Can you show me the dis-integration of a source being a passing mention, or how can you compare the strength of a reliable source?. If in that case, yes, the strength of Times Group mention is far widely stronger than any other mention. I am not asking you to do a research, what I am asking is to use some basic knowledge and understanding to measure the strength of that resource. If you think that passing resource cannot be put in NACTOR#1 category, then I think you need to redefine the category, because it is not easy to have a "passing mention" in times group's leading newspaper. TheAuthor! (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Read WP:GNG. We are not only looking for reputable sources but also the extent of coverage. Do you understand, "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources"?? Passing mentions are trivial coverage and Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about that. Do you have any other source beside one passing mention and one TV gossip of questionable reliability?

If you want to modify the Notability guideline, then that is out-of-scope of this venue. Start a separate discussion at Village pump. Stick to the point. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? Yes or No and We are done! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fairly notable to me but not enough english citations are available to prove notability according to guidelines.Mr RD 21:12, 19 February 2015 (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 - no claim to notability only (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roots Smokehouse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restaurant which hasn't yet opened. Does contain two citations from (the same) local source, but doesn't appear to meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Prod deleted with no comment from page creator. BusterD (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a genealogical entry of a non-notable individual. The Silver Star, although a highly honorable decoration, does not automatically confer notability per WP:SOLDIER, and notability is not inherited. Valfontis (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Warrant officer with a distinguished but not exceptional career. Rank and awards not significant enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regretfully the subject doesn't appear to have "significant" coverage in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRAC (ISMS)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is blatant advertising, created and heavily edited by two users, User:SecureBanking and User:Tvanpeursem, both of whom seem to be associated with the company that created the product (the subject of the article). The tone of the article is clearly promotional, so the intent of the article is clear. V2Blast (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The one conference paper appears to be authored by people associated with the software developers, and inclusion as a partner for a banking association is not significant coverage. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. A post-deletion redirect to the developer, Secure Banking Solutions, would also be reasonable, if that page survives its current Afd.Dialectric (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are complicated by "TRAC" being a common product name in diverse areas, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that this security/risk management product is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 Years Of Atomic Kitten - Tour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Concert_tours Gaff (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Gaff (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment see article talk page for thoughts from article creator, if interested. --Gaff (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite" (emphasis original) and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." (emphasis original). Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of proposing AfD, maybe I should have just merged this into article about the band, then made this article a redirect. We could //consider// doing that now and maybe have AfD close early?--Gaff (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per crystal and NTOUR. I don't see what content needs to be merge-- if this is better than the main article that's a sad statement. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crystal, Nothing to Merge neither. –Davey2010^Talk 05:07, 25 January 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

180 Smoke Electronic Cigarette

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly notable; seems overly promotional. -down load 21:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It used to be even more promotional. I agree that it is of questionable notability at best. A Google News search turns up press releases, and the sources in the article have never thrilled me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2015 (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 Keep (withdrawal; non-admin closure). DivineAlpha (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TeleSign

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, fails notability (Note: An IP address was challenging this by CSD, creating this on their behalf [not sure if I'm allowed to do that?]) DivineAlpha (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Hi DivineAlpha, yes, you may make afd nominations on behalf of IP editors. However you should precisely note in afd rationale that it is on behalf an IP editor (that I see you did) and procedural in nature (if you are neutral). Coming to the topic, subject appears to be meeting the WP:NCORP and WP:GNG inclusion criteria (sources are cited in the article). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:47, 2 February 2015 (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. but at the very least, there is no consensus for deletion. Feel free to discuss possible merge/redirect targets on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No attempt made to show that this organisation is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. No independent notability, but it is a part of that organisation. JT_dale^Talk~ 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a publisher, as one of its major functions. 37 years old. Publisher of peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development and another journal or two or more. See its publications subpage. It's located in Ankara, Turkey. Parent organization is a U.N. body, located in Saudi Arabia?

Try also searching:

(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)

Seems major, probably an obvious Keep. Certainly article should be developed more, yes, but AFD is not to force article improvement. --do ncr am 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:49, 25 January 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Election Day, 2013

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: This article is supposed to have the links to all the elections that occurred in Russia, but all except for two links are just links to different provinces of Russia. This article isn't useful at all. Kndimov (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unlikely search term for local elections and an unnecessary intermediate step. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 28 January 2015 (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. For safety, I also ran search and came to the same conclusions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fudpucker's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on Florida restaurant lacks significant coverage for WP:GNG, fails WP:NPLACE. Vrac (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although there are some sources in the article, the subject isn't notable. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Non notable restaurant. –Davey2010^Talk 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2015 (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Métis of Maine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable social club. Most google hits use this page and the website as only source. Unsourced since 2010. I believe this is a for-profit venture and they are attempting to use WP to misrepresent themselves. - CorbieV^☊ 00:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some references were added. The group was formed in 2003 and in 2013 had about 400 members. State of Maine extends recognition to the MÉTIS. Ludi Romani (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it shocking the state gave any recognition, as culturally the group is neither Métis nor Northeastern Woodlands, but it's not the first time something like this has happened. The 400 people claim is in that one brief article. I don't think it was investigated. Personally, I don't buy it. - CorbieV^☊ 19:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found the "recognition" was BOGUS: http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/JUDbillsumm2007.pdf shows that the Bill draft linked here (LD 115), was not enacted. ("ONTP" means "ought not to pass") A search of current Maine Statutes, shows no formal "recognition" for this group. Apparently they talked someone into introducing a bill in the state legislature and it went nowhere. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the aforementioned review of sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:37, 2 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Kahia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Article written by subject. Minor awards, but nothing major. Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:FILMMAKER- his "collective body of works" seems to have no more than cursory reviews, no more than you might find in a program guide or weekly paper, not in depth. The Catholic World Report article is mainly an interview, which is probably not an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I didn't find any reliable sources to meet WP:NN. Most of the sources seemed to be written by a user. But If better sources are added bringing awareness it could be a keep. Chosenone Pie (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (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 keep. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Klanderud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria for biographical notability, majority of refs are from a single obit CompliantDrone (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As disproportionately well known as Aspen, Colorado may be, its actual population is only in the 6K range — which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, and unfortunately this article is neither sourced enough to get over WP:GNG in lieu, nor substantive enough to make any real claim that she's in any way more notable than the norm. (Nothing in this article suggests that she accomplished anything unique, for example — it just lists a few completely standard accomplishments of the "all mayors do this" variety and details her raw electoral history.) So all in all, this is little more than a misplaced obituary which offers no genuinely substantive evidence of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources used for this article are from independent news organizations, not family sources/obits as stated in previous comments on the Helen Klanderud: Revision history page (Aspen Daily News, Vail Daily, etc.). In addition to Mayor of Apsen, Klanderud held county-wide office as Commissioner on the governing body for the county. While it may be the largest county in the U.S., County Commissioners are increasingly included on Wikipedia as well. From a personal perspective, I tried to create a well cited, biographical article with supporting details, noting Klanderud's political and public career in Colorado and contributions to the region, in terms of healthcare policy, local government, etc. I also tried to make it balanced. My hope is to eventually expand the Aspen mayoral topics to include a Mayor of Aspen parent article with separate biographical articles on the town's other recent and historic mayors, though real-world responsibilities and obligations have delayed this potential expansion at present. All that aside, Klanderud's public career passes the test for inclusion here. Scanlan (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our base rule for mayors is that a city has to have a population at least in the 50K-100K range before it can confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — and even then, the city has to be closer to (or over) the higher end of that range before it's safely beyond any debate about whether the mayor is really notable enough to clear the bar. For a place as small as Aspen, you can't claim NPOL but rather have to get a mayor over WP:GNG by citing considerably more references than this — and at least some of those references would have to be to significantly larger and more widely-circulated newspapers, much more on the order of the Denver Post or The New York Times than anything you've offered here. A mayor in a town of just 6,600 people does not get over our inclusion bar on the basis of five citations to the local newspaper and local advertising directories. And county commissioners don't get an automatic NPOL pass either — just like smalltown mayors, we keep them if, and only if, they can be much more solidly sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, two of those "local" sources are owned by Carson City, Nevada based Swift Communications and are nothing but advertorials for resorts and real estate companies. - CompliantDrone (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aspen Times and Vail Daily newspapers have been published, in one form or another, since the 1880s and 1980s respectively, long before their acquisition by Swift Communications. Ownership of local U.S. newspapers and other publications by larger companies headquartered elsewhere is common and in no way discounts or excludes them as reputable sources, especially for news articles. While not owned by Swift, the same could be said for the Aspen Daily News, a daily publication that has been around since the late 1970s.Scanlan (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note the expansion of the section on her work as mayor of Aspen on Climate Change, with attendant sources such as the Denver Post, summed in the lead as follows: "As mayor, Klanderud was an active proponent of efforts to study and address climate change, initiatives for which the city received national and international recognition" (World Wildlife Fund, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Her activity in this area, at national as well as regional and local forums, was not something "all mayors do". Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources meet the General notability guideline WP:GNG. -- GreenC 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Aspen is a smallish city, she used her role as Mayor of a high-profile city to advocate nationally for her issues. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (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.

[1] ttp://jamesgolick.com/2013/4/14/mris-method-caches.html

[2] ttp://jamesgolick.com/talks.html

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Butin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/释学诚}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dairese Gary}}