Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:25, 10 October 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA players who have played in the Chinese Basketball Association

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

I don't think this list meets WP:LISTN Some of these athletes who've played for or originated from the CBA are already mentioned in the opening paragraphs of Chinese Basketball Association. I'm not sure whether this should be merged and deleted to Chinese Basketball Association or fully deleted. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless someone can come up with a source for the list, both to properly source it and to justify its existence as a standalone list article. Otherwise it does not work as a list here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think it's notable in the context of CBA history and prestige to provide a list of its players who have played in the world's top basketball league. Granted the article has a lot of problems right now – what it desperately needs is references, some sort of affirmation that the list is complete, and more information (i.e. something like the table at Irish Experiment) – but the notability and validity of the article as a whole seems adequate to me. Aspirex (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An abbreviated list could be appropriate somewhere. A comprehensive, sourced list would be a huge headache, though. English-language information on the CBA is spotty, and even if you can read Chinese, I think it would be difficult to keep tabs on everyone, since teams are constantly dropping and replacing their imports. (If there is some CBA-related equivalent of basketball-reference.com, it may be possible, but I'm not aware of anything like that.) Zagalejo^^^ 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did find this, which could potentially be helpful, but I don't know if it's comprehensive. Zagalejo^^^ 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a list is the way to go. The players that have played in both will be in the cross-section of the two categories for each league (more akin to trivia then) but I think we're better off if any "history of the CBA" articles merge in the history of any notable players rather than a mere cross-section list of all players in both leagues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, with no independent, reliable sources discussing this grouping. I wouldn't be surprised if they exist in Chinese sources, but nobody has demonstrated that they do (and I do not speak it). Yes the NBA is the top-tier basketball league in the world, but let's not start a precedent to use that fact to blindly create a similar grouping for all other all leagues in which former NBA players have participated in, and presume such a grouping is universally notable.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba's rationale immediately above: fails WP:LISTN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Hodder

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:CREATIVE: no work in permanent collections of major museums, no extensive critical discussion of her work. Refs are unreliable notices DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely unless someone wants it drafted and userfied as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you supply the sources SwisterTwister? Why not add them so the article doesn't need to be deleted? If you supply them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red, someone will fill the article in. I'd be happy to add what I can. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-for now, but tag as needing sources. This list of artwork is impressive. I wish there were some sources linked to images to see it. Would really help improve the article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has met WP:GNG by significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to other comments, WP:GNG has certainly not been met. The sources given are either not independent of the subject or are promotional in nature, publishing press releases and/or listings of exhibitions. The "media outlets" are the same thing, promotional copy sent from a gallery. Her exhibition record does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. She is a working artist, yes, but not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Simply put, there are no reliable sources and notability is not established. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister, and especially Freshacconci, whose assessment hits the nail on the head. Editors simply saying that this individual passes WP:GNG, with supplying references to back up that assertion speaks for itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 30 October 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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nassif

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

promotional and not notable. The only RSs are about his divorce from his wife, who is notable. He's not even simpt. enough for a redirect,unless we add redirectsfrom the names of everyone who is divorced from a notable person. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the co-host (and also a co-executive producer) of Botched, which will be entering its third season next year. He's also appeared on Dr. 90210 and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. I'm not too familiar with those two shows, and I don't know what his role was on 90210, so I'm not sure if those appearances make him notable. He has also contributed to/authored roughly 20 to 30 journal articles that I can find on Google Scholar, again I don't know if those make him notable. The article is lacking and maybe a bit promotional, but I think with work and better sources it could be improved. Melonkelon (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Botched obviously as searches easily find links for him but there may not be enough for a better separate article and he is best known for the TV show thus linking there is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with Botched the other shows and being a noted surgeon I can not see why he should be deleted 152.31.193.130 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Melonkelon - one of the world's most famous plastic surgeons. H-index of 9, quite high for someone who is not an academic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is not only known for having a famous wife, known even more for several television shows, including Botched and its spin-off which been just announced. Mymis (talk) 22:28, 18 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic regions of Canada

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

The "economic regions of Canada" are not a notable thing in their own right — they are, rather, an internal Statistics Canada mechanism used solely for aggregating employment statistics for various Canadian markets. And the only sourcing that exists for this list, further, is a Statistics Canada web page which doesn't even actually define what any of the regions are, but just lists them and then gives a general boilerplate "For census subdivisions: See: StatsCan website. For localities: See: StatsCan website." description under each and every last one of them — which means even the sourcing isn't actually helping anything or anyone. In effect, that just makes this a pointless list of things that will never actually have separate articles of their own — but Wikipedia does not exist as a venue for publishing lists of non-notable things. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a Stats Canada classification that nobody else seems to use. There are scattered mentions of Canadian economic regions, but they're rather generic and have no connection to this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable list. -- R45 ^talk! 20:24, 9 October 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 and redirect to American Parliamentary Debate Association. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Parliamentary Debate Society

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

A ordinary college debate team. References are to primary sources (the team itself, the blog of an ex-member, etc. It certainly exists, but I can find no in-depth, secondary coverage indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to APDA's article for now as I'm not finding much aside from a few links particularly at Books. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to American Parliamentary Debate Association - This group is a member of the American Parliamentary Debate Association, they are in essence a local chapter in Maryland. They could merge into this article, but condensed. I would redirect to American Parliamentary Debate Association. See this page. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Parliamentary Debate Association as per DangerDogWest. Not enough independent coverage for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Opposed to a full merge; there doesn't seem to be anything here worth merging. The article is mostly trivia about one specific college debate society which isn't any different from any other college debate society except the names are changed. I'm not even sure there's much value in a redirect because this is an unlikely search term but redirects are cheap, so no reason not to. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 31 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lareal Watt

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

Individual notable for only one event, not passing WP:BLP1E. Initial contributor, Philmonte101, is definitely a good-faith editor and I would request that all input be positive and constructive. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is that the article should be kept. I think the subject is interesting and there are 3 references; I could really do more references to arrest archives. Is it even possible to keep the article? The research I did was honestly simple, since there are little resources out there. I feel like Wikipedia is a sum of research, and this is definitely the sum of my research on the knucklehead. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)--Formatting to standard AfD !vote structure. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I seriously considered adding {{db-attack}} to the page and would endorse others if they do the same. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of criminals. Yes, we have notorious criminals and we have people who were notable in their own right before before committing crimes but the vast majority of criminals fail WP:N. When it comes to determining the notability of a criminal, the kinds of sources matter: Those which routinely report all crimes of a given type or all crimes in a given geographic location or all crimes which fit a certain profile are generally treated much the same way as "business directory listings" are - they don't carry much weight. There is also WP:ONEEVENT, which generally means criminals who have only received press coverage for a single crime or crime spree don't qualify for their own article, but the underlying crime or crime spree might if it met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as well. The subject definitely fails WP:CRIME. Borderline WP:CSD#G10. Having this article makes me seriously uncomfortable. –Grondemar 04:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:BLPCRIME and is a borderline attack page. This is basically a biography of one arrest of interest to the local news media. Even if this person is convicted, the alleged crime is fairly ordinary. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:BLPCRIME, which can be overridden in the case of an incident that becomes notorious. this didn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPCRIME, Probably not as bad as the weird shite you see on mens toilet doors here in the UK!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 13 October 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) sst ✈ 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Papers

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded after a reference showing an in-passing mention was added. PROD reason still stands, hence: *Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books shows that the journal easily passes WP:NJournals #2. Also, the reference referred to above is more than simply an "in-passing mention", and probably indicates that it passes #1 as well. Worldcat shows holdings in 600 libraries. St Anselm (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to WP:NJOURNAL #1, an independent reliable source needs to reach that conclusion, or the evidence needs to be overwhelming. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability.Zaalim (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books (as above) - if being heavily cited in the academic and scholarly literature is not enough to make a journal notable then what is! Do we have to have a 3rd party source which says "Priscilla Papers is a notable journal" somewhere. Nonsense! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - use the "Scholar" option from the "Find sources" element above and you get lots of such citations etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others said, it's easily found in Google Book searches, and I just did a Worldcat search on it and found it held in over 600 locations near me. Easily passes WP:NJournals #2 at least. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The library holdings don't say much (apart from the fact that WorldCat is quite unreliable): the journal is open access (delayed, but still), meaning that many libraries will list it as an "Internet resource" because it doesn't cost anything. As for the GBooks searches, did you really see anything substantial (as opposed to some hits)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 11 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaban Ali Khan

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

Non-notable, run of the mill businessman. PRODed by Wgolf on 25 March 2014 as unsourced BLP, de-PRODed by IP editor after adding the text "Nawroj Ali Khan, his nephew. His son , Muhammad Ali Khan's youngest son" at the end (possibly intended as some kind of reference; subsequently removed). Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest turned up nothing more substantive about this Jaban Ali Khan than wiki-mirrors and directory-type listings, so does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should really have gone as a result of the BLP Prod process in March 2014, but the notice was removed by an IP. [1] AllyD (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are finding only mirrors of the same text and nothing of substance that could support the article. (A couple of news pieces mention "the late Jaban Ali Khan" in the context of police detention but these appear to be about someone else.) Fails biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non, per AllyD. Should have been PRODed. --nafSadh did say 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better with my best search links here but that may be for someone else. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 9 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasan M Sadeq

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

WP:BLP of an academic, which makes a potentially valid claim of notability but fails to properly source it. The only reference anywhere in the entire article is not media coverage of him, but a PDF of a conference presentation by him — making it an invalid primary source right off the top, before you even take into account the fact that it while it verifies his existence it fails to actually confirm the information it's footnoting. There's also a lot of subjective and unencyclopedic language in here — the fact that his mother "would help all her neighbours", while lovely as it goes, has nothing to do with whether he belongs in an encyclopedia or not — which makes it remarkably unsurprising that the article was created by someone with "AUB" in their username (check again the name of the university the article subject is a faculty member at, and refer directly to WP:COI.) While he might be eligible to keep a Wikipedia article that was written and sourced properly, he doesn't get to keep this. Delete unless proper sourceability in reliable sources can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper inline citations to reliable sources are added.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Now, this article only serves as a CV. Further, in my evaluation, WP:ACADEMIC doesn't necessarily hold. Only criteria that may apply for him is 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. However, per note, the institute has to be major and significant. Asian University of Bangladesh only has minimal significance to warrant an article for its own, but not for its vice-chancellor(s). --nafSadh did say 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom and nafSadh sum it up well. A vice chancellor, but at an ordinary, commonplace university. AUB is in no way a major or significant institution of higher education and research, so he does not meet criterion 6 of the professor test. Furthermore, searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR turn up only an occassional passing mention (e.g. "was in attendance"), and a handful of articles he has authored with a small handful of citations of them. There is little verifiable information available, and nothing important to say about the subject, so a stand alone article is not warranted. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 10 October 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 Playtime Is Over (mixtape). Both this and the non disambiguated title will be fully protected. Whether to delete the underlying article is therefore meaningless. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song)

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

PROD was removed by creator. Non-notable song from an early Nicki Minaj mixtape. Holds no significance or notability above the other tracks from the tape. Note: The article was originally speedily deleted under a different name (Wuchoo Know) three times, and once under its current name if that makes any difference. Azealia911 _talk 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no chart history for the song and it simply does not meet guidelines as a single requires its own notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and CNMall41. Doesn't seem to have any significant coverage by reliable sources, article doesn't establish notability. Melonkelon (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but create a redirect at Wuchoo Know to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). It's not an unreasonable redirect without the qualifier. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree about keeping a redirect. Makes sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect at Wuchoo Know. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the 5th creation, always by LilDennie Wikipedia, despite any warning and a block in September. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). I see no source that the song was even a single. But to be fair, everyone, an article doesn't have to be deleted before it is redirected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment on articles not needing to be deleted before redirection, however it can't hurt, and may prevent restoration of the article by its creator (whom removed the AfD tag from the atticle 5 times). Azealia911 _talk 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt has been repeatedly deleted for failing WP:NSONGS and is unlikely to become notable in the future Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt and then Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape) all in that order :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 13 October 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. Sandstein 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuraa Bhattacharya

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

It isn't clear that she qualifies for A7 speedy deletion but I can't find anything of substance about her under either of her names as written in Roman letters, and nothing but this article and three pages from the same lyrics site under her name as written in Bengali. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSICIAN. All of the sources given are affiliated or are other Wikipedia articles. On top of that, the entire article is written from a fan's point of view. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "written from a fan's point of view" is something that can be corrected and is no reason for deletion. However, failure to meet notability guidelines is. I found a few references such as these passing mentions [2], [3], & [4] so there is more than just mirror sites. I am not sure if there is a name issue as the article states she changed her name in 2013. I guess I will wait and see if someone has any better luck finding more in depth sources prior to casting a !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, despite several warnings and G11 speedy deletions, the same contributor keeps recreating the article, under variations of the title, with the same promotional wording. I see no option but to delete. Deb (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the listed sources are instantly signs this may not be improvable material and so if there is none, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 15 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Huang

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the article on mophie a while ago but unfortunately I do not see enough for Huang to have his own article. I cannot locate anything in depth that would satisfy WP:GNG. The best article out there is the Forbes article, but it is about the company and only dedicates a small amount of wording to Huang. I also isolated searching for his name and the other companies mentioned and also came up with nothing in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I particularly found links at News immediately, there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 11 October 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 09:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (CD-ROM)

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

No evidence this warez CD-ROM series meets WP:GNG. 1 NON-WP:INDEPENDENT ref to a Twilight CD website; may not be WP:V-erifiable either. One link returns WP:404. 189.25.224.254 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell how the authorship works on Tweakers but it might be the only useful secondary source from the lot. Perhaps the Dutch is an impediment to my search, but I'm unable to find any easily accessible historical news stories. I'll go with delete for now, but please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding much in my native tongue (English) for this, but the infamous lawsuit/crime which appears to accompany this could be of interest-both for the article's interest to readers as well as establishing the topic's bona fides (I'll not use the n-word).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious about deletion for article quality reasons. I only suggested the above because it would establish inclusion criteria. But those are properties of the topic of the article, not its contents. If we can't yet determine that, we should not reach a delete consensus. Then, WP:DEADLINE suggests we wait and WP:NOEFFORT suggests we remove any unverified material until improvements are made.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 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 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current article needs cleanup, particularly for original research, but the subject appears notable. The www.anti-piracy.nl and fwdmagazine.be sourcing appears reliable, and i also found this pdf from anti-piracy.nl. Pirate software seldom receives the kind of coverage official releases do for a variety of reasons - this pirated collection seems notable for both its volume and for the legal actions that targeted it.Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dialectric's reasoning. SJK (talk) 08:47, 31 October 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galit Hasan-Rokem

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

Do not believe the subject of this unsourced BLP meets PROF or any other notability guideline. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes ACADEMIC because she had held a named chair, the Max and Margareth Grunwald Professor of Folklore at the Hebrew University in Jerulaem and was the Head of the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While the article as it exists in the English Wikipedia would be a mere Keep, the corresponding Hebrew Wikipedia article passes the our notability guidelines with flying colors. Let's see this article expanded using the material and sources available there, in addition to those readily available in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have added sources to prove notability from reliable sites, including her biographical listing in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Folklore and Traditions. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I am withdrawing my nomination J04n(talk page) 00:07, 8 October 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) –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Systems

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

just a catalog of their products DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company meets WP:GNG and previously publicly traded before being acquired. Here are some references [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are a ton of brief mentions which can help fill out content in the article in order to make it more than just a list of projects. If the article is kept, I am more than willing to do the article cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep company was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2007 and 2011 before being bought out, so it has quite a bit of coverage especially during that period [9] [10] [11]. The article is poorly written but shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- R45 ^talk! 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not well-sourced at all, but notability and such attach to the topic of the article, not the article as it is now. As WP:NPOSSIBLE reminds us: "The absence of citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable. " This was/is a public company with a ton of editorially independent discussion about it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company is notable, secondary reliable sources regarding the company have been produced (see above), and it passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. I agree that the article is not great, but this is completely irrelevant in the AFD process. I would take some time and brush up on WP:N WP:V, and WP:AFD before nominating more articles - this article is a clear 'Keep'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made some edits to the page to improve some of the issues mentioned here. mikeman67 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator, !votes are all neutral or keeps. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick Mons

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

There is just one reference and this one reference doesn't say that the geological feature is called Kubrick Mons. This article has to be deleted. Huritisho 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was planning on saying "no opinion", but if your reason for deletion is that there are insufficient sources, then you should add better sources per WP:BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that the source doesn't even say the geological feature is called kubrik mons. It would also violate the notability requirement Huritisho 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are adequate sources available for a stub. Seems intuitively clear that the feature is not going away and people will continue to want to know about it. The name is "informal" for now, perhaps, but that's OK — if it gets a different, more official name, we can always move the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't even say it is called kubrik mons Huritisho 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one does. So do several others that you can find just by clicking the link that was automatically added by the {{find sources}} template. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility of moving it to Charon (moon)#Geology Huritisho 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, adequate sources exist for a stub, and the feature is intuitively notable. I'm sticking with keep. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, now tending weak keep. Trovatore has found a source showing that the moat mountain is indeed called Kubrick Mons, informally. This also says it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to cancel this darn nomination I started. Huritisho 19:41, 7 October 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 as this seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Speas

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines for academics. I did not find any notable fellowships, any notable posts at a university or at a journal, or any major impactful work that has met the guidelines. However, I could be wrong! (And I always hope I am!) Missvain (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meets many of the notability guidelines. All this information is found on the page. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - Her work on Navajo has definitely made a significant impact, her founding of the Navajo Language Academy reflects this. 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - Her coauthored textbook on Navajo is the official Navajo textbook of the state of Arizona. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - Her non academic work with the Navajo Language Academy attests to this. Hauserivy (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Concur with Hauserivy. Sources on file already denote significant contributions to cultural preservation as well as language. SusunW (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Hauserivy and SusunW. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Author of a widely-used text book. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and I've added more references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 10 October 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 by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak

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

No evidence of notability at all, no Google results for the title combined with "Bernie Jamon" except this page and one other WP page that logs speedy deletion candidates. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without sources, it's impossible to know this is even real. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

Delete for (at kindest) being waaaaaaay TOO SOON. It was easy enough to take the nominated stub and correct its format per MOS:FILM. The filmmaker and his lead actor appear to be real, but the project itself has no coverage. LAcking coverage, itfails WP:NF. If it ever gets coverage, the topic might be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No WP:RS, possible hoax.--RioHondo (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a pretty blatant hoax. Initially I was going to just say that this was likely a hoax given that the lead actor is fairly well known and is pretty regularly covered in English language websites (or English searchable websites) and there's no mention of this film anywhere. However a look at the editor's talk page shows that he tried to create a similar article there for a film released in 2025 that's based on a book by the same name as this film. Given that there are no sources out there and it's highly unlikely that there would be no coverage in English for one of Cruz's new roles plus we have content on the user's talk page that gives off the strong impression that this is a hoax, I have to assume that the quacking here means that this is a WP:DUCK. I do think that there is someone by the name of Bernie Jamon, but I think that this is more a young adult or child creating an article for their dream film they want to make one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 8 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Balkin

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

Not notable and Promotional -- see the COIN Noticeboard [12]. his book is minor: only 40 copies in libraries, which is utterly trivial for popular works on finance. There is no other notability. We don't include articles even for actual unelected candidates for office--certainly not for those who just considered running. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He seems marginally notable. Marginally. His wealthy father was a director at McKinsey, won the Order of Australia, and doesn't have an article. The son is less notable; he's been loosely associated with important people and events, but hasn't done anything notable himself. His career high point seems to have been one TEDx talk. John Nagle (talk) 17:48, 7 October 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 vaudeville performers: L–Z#M. Sandstein 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machinson Sisters

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

I'm not entirely convinced if they existed and if they actually existed, they were not well known and there are no good sources as the best I found was this. Inviting TheGGoose and Calamondin12 and also notifying author Infrogmation. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit of coverage here but I can't read the whole book, only use the Google Books preview feature. Other than that I couldn't find anything that looked reliable. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like they existed: see this "antique chromolithograph print" complete with kittens in the crotches. I will go with Delete, as these sisters were a copycat act (pun intended) of the Barrison sisters. They both had the same "would you like to see my pussy" routine. I sense that I could go on and have a pun or double-entendre in every sentence, but I will stop now.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M. They existed, and redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M as a plausible search term. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [13]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 16 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slammed (play)

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

Article is essentially a very long plot summary without any references or suggestions of significance/notability. Nsteffel (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and it's interesting to note that there is a published mirror book at Books. Notifying taggers Jaguar and Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 October 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 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely

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

Fails pirnbio and gng. Nominations don't count Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently expanded the article under consideration here. The subject here has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - namely the film Eve's Secret & the reality TV show Jenna's American Sex Star. Also, the subject here has been a mainstream model for American Apparel and has "had significant roles in multiple notable films & television shows" (as basically already stated above). Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points on your vote Guy. Firstly The film (Eve's Secret) is according to its article a made-for cable erotic film. To me that's not mainstream and not significant and I note that there is no evidence that the film is itself notable. I have therefore listed it for discussion at AFD. Secondly, I don't believe that taking part in a reality show counts as featured and again there should really be critical discussion of her performance to lift this into the required zone for PB#3. I'm not sure why you are citing ENT as that does not apply to porn performers by long precedence.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant standard in PORNBIO is "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which means that there needs to be more than one featured appearance (in the film in question here, Ms. Stokely starred as the title character "Eve", and Ms. Stokely was one of the contestants on the reality show in question here) and that the type of media needs to be notable (which basically means that it needs to have its own Wikipedia article) and mainstream (of which both Cinemax and Playboy TV are considered, IMO, to be mainstream media).

Subjects of Wikipedia articles can obviously be evaluated under many different inclusion guidelines, and the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model in the past. Therefore, she can be evaluated under the NMODEL standard, which (in this case) is very similar to the relevant PORNBIO standard anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Sources please? Or is just another made up vote from you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Softcore erotica is not "mainstream" work, per established practice. The American Apparel-related coverage includes no significant content regarded the article subject herself, mainly passing mentions and unverifiable self-sourced claims, and would justify no more than a delete-and-redirect to the subsection of the American Apparel article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There do not appear to be any significant "unverifiable self-sourced claims" in the article under question here at this late date. The fact that the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model for American Apparel in the past is well-established at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and that does not make her notable unless someone has written about her modelling for them in RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business ia self-sourced and unverified -- more accurately, her two entirely different and irreconcilable accounts, both referenced in the article. Her version of her hiring by American Apparel falls into the same category. Right now, all the biographical info in the article is as likely to be kayfabe, if not fabrication, as it is to be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business"...is, in a word, unimportant. It's also neither unusual nor notable at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies that prohibit the use of self-sourced information in Wikipedia articles, especially for completely non-controversial or non-notable information.

Again, that "Stokely has modeled for several American Apparel advertisements" is an established fact, beyond any reasonable doubt. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requires the use of high-quality, reliable sources. An article subject who tells thoroughly incompatible, unverifiable stories about her own professional career simply isn't a reliable source. The fact that's she's appeared in a few advertisements may be an established fact, but it's far, far below the standard required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy1890. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul "RJ" Jain

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

Fails WP:GNG - several of the sources appear to be Press releases or PR-type sources, or not discussing him. Mdann52 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest better and the coverage seems to be the same such as this so there isn't anything lasting to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:36, 7 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Marin

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please note: es:Giorgia Marin, id:Giorgia Marin, it:Giorgia Marin (her home country) and nl:Giorgia Marin. ErikvanB (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect to her one film although the latter often causes trouble with independent notability for a separate article and such so either will be good. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Community Foundation

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

Basically this could've been tagged as G11 but given its age (August 2007) and almost all edits apparently being the group themselves, I wanted comments. This is an excellent and I found results here, here, here and here (this last one, see some of the first results saying it is Florida's largest community foundation with about $1 million in assets but I'm not sure if this can be improved; I even improved fellow Florida-based Amigos For Kids and that looked better). SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. quality sources lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 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. Any other articles than the originally nominated one must be nominated seperately Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Global DMC

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

I considered speedying this especially considering what it looked like before here but given its age and amount of low edits, I wanted comments; the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. NOTE: I' also nominating another European company Lestra for which I'm not sure is fully notable, the French Wiki has some more info but not convincingly much and the best my searches was this and this (I searched Newspapers Archive and found nothing so the only chance of good coverage is archived French media). Notifying Lestra past editors (July 2009) Theroadislong and Falcon8765. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lots of press release and trade magazine coverage but couldn't come up with anything in RS; fails WP:CORP. Vrac (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @SwisterTwister: maybe it would be better to have a separate AFD for Lestra; since it is an unrelated company and has some coverage it would be cleaner to be able to separate the votes. Vrac (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion for Ovation , but the other article needs renominating. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Simply for curiosity though, what would you thoughts of Lestra be? I would also appreciate if you'd comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey W. Schroeder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Nazemson which have gotten low voting attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 10 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hilliard

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

WP:BLP1E of an accident survivor, which demonstrates no sustained notability outside the context of that accident itself. If her incident had documentably led to a major advance in medical science, then there might be a case to be made that she warrants an article for it — but if the sum total of its enduring impact is that she awoke from a coma 49 days later, the end, then that's just not enough to warrant permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We look for continuing coverage two of the reliable sources posted are from 2015 showing the subject has been covered for 3 decades. Also sources describe the case as a miracle. The uniqueness of the case lends itself to notability. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Miracle" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — it's an inherently unverifiable and non-neutral assertion. And the fact that one or two human interest stories might look back on something that happened 35 years ago does not demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a sustained way "for three decades", if you can't find any sources that are dated anywhere between 1981 and 2015. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is clearly verifiable by reliable sources. Here is a book source from 2002 [14] and another medical source from 1983 [15]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe weak keep simply because this seems interesting and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as unique case discussed in-depth as the singular focus of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 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 Mar del Plata#Culture. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa Mutante

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

Basically seems to be an advert for an art collective/regular event night in Buenos Aires, but the only tenuous claim to notability is having a profile on a website linked to the Ministry of Culture. Online I can only see coverage in blogs, events listings and other unreliable sources. This Wikipedia article seems to have been written enthusiastically but prematurely. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the festival is actually held at Mar del Plata, 404 km south of Buenos Aires.--Darius (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I live in Mar del Plata, the city where the festival is held, and frankly the first notice I have about is English Wikipedia. No more notability that any other cultural event held in any medium-size city in the world.--Darius (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put my opinion on hold until reliable sources on the event could be found. I made the mistake of judging this article through my personal experience, my apologies.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I live in Mar del Plata and after the collective was awarded an official recognition by the City. They have also appeared in the local newspaper several times. And some of the sources used are Digital Magazines and Newspapers that cover events in the Mar del Plata area, like Ajo Digital, EntreArte and Butaca 22. Though it doesn't seem much compared to groups and collectives from bigger cities around the world for one in Mar del Plata, they are actually quite known within the artist's community. If the issue arises from the need of more reliable sources like newspapers, the local newspaper doesn't upload all the articles, but I can get the dates when the articles about them where published to reference. So, does the article need more important references? Acrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs)

Reply Thanks for the information Sionk. I also want to ask, if in an event people from other cities and countries participate, does their involvement not make the event known enough even if it moves in the independent artist community? I'm asking as one of the references is from the Uruguayan Book Fair and they have spread to the city of La Plata where a similar event takes placeAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mar del Plata#Culture where it is currently mentioned as although my searches found nothing good, this can be saved for future use. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schoortasche

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

Can find no evidence that such a term exists. Only hits are mirror sites. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Holland-related deletion discussions. Vrac (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this would've actually seemed best for the Hudson Valley article but there's simply no obviousness of improvement. BTW Vrac how was it you found this article? SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the orphanage. Know any Dutch-speaking editors? Maybe one could shed some light on this term. Vrac (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The etymology is nonsense, there is no evidence of use, and I suspect this is a hoax to be pronounced "short-ass".--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - etymology aside, article fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 22 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ranchi

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

This is a recently created article, published by Mularam2014 (talk · contribs) on 7 September 2015‎. The concern is that this article is based upon a single source, and that source is an internet forum post which provides absolutely no verifiable detail. See: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=126895518&postcount=1056 I am recommending deletion, as this list is purely based upon original research and fails basic verification policies. Efforts were made WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate reliable sources, but were not successful on my part. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears none of the listed buildings are notable (we barely have enough entries in Category:Buildings and structures in Ranchi to have a completely general "list of buildings and structures in Ranchi", period), and so we'd at least expect some measure of the list topic itself ("tallest buildings in Ranchi") being notable and thus satisfying WP:LISTN. Otherwise I'm failing to see the informational value, and I think we (correctly) tend to delete "tallest buildings" lists under these circumstances. postdlf (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this is notable enough for its own lift. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe the lack of references at this time is an adequate reason on its own to delete the article. Surely there is some record, perhaps at the city hall. Ma^t_chups 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have to compile this data ourselves because no secondary source ever has, and if we have to dig through public archives to locate the data in the first place, then I can't see how this is a topic we should be covering. And even though we can compare heights to tell that one building is taller than another, we'd have to make our own judgments about whether our research has been comprehensive enough (and that we are comparing the right figures from building to building), which would slide this into WP:OR. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say the Time

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. A shareware people's choice award is a distinction of questionable importance. Lacks coverage in RS. Barely scraped by its first AFD in 2006. I suspect standards have evolved to where this subject is no longer considered notable.Vrac (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links at Books, browser and Highbeam and a better article can be started later if it can. Pinging still active users LFaraone and Nihonjoe. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to be kept. r a y u k k. 21:01, 14 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christensen (snowboarder)

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement with these links being my best search results and this article has existed since December 2008 and started by a "Etren" (somewhat suspect this is the subject himself). Notifying past taggers Zanimum and Dawn Bard. NOTE: I'm also nominating another sports bio Phil Shao who although seemed to have gotten a fair amount of coverage locally especially for the memorial park (see my best results here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if there's enough for a separate article and at best should be briefly mentioned at the Redwood City, California article. This article has existed since May 2006 and has hardly changed since then. Notifying author Nocarsgo and past editor Jason Quinn. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in 2008 I tagged it with the {{notability}} tag, so yeah, even then I agreed with deletion. Amazed that it lasted so long. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits in this only involved two cleanup edits to the Phil Shao article. I have no idea why I was singled out from among the other editors to that page. I have no personal interest in either article. I'm not sure these two deletions should be bundled however. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources other than youtube--failing GNG.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other comment. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:27, 8 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Vörös

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

Questionably notable as there's not much here especially sourcing and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 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. With Tokyogirl79's addition of 2 more reviews, consensus seems to tip to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight for Canada

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

No indication of notability, found one HuffPo review but that's about it. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT with this footnote, this academic review, and this newspaper article. It needs rewritten, though, as it's insufficient as-is. Apparently the book's author has a reputation among some as an anti-free trade crank so it could be notable because of the author. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the HuffPo piece I found wasn't about the book, just thought I'd mention that. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only criterion of WP:NBOOK this book has a chance of meeting is criterion one. It requires that the book be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book. At first glance, we have four sources: the Huffington Post article, the footnote, the Calgary Herald article, and the academic review from persee.fr. However, Primefac said he made a mistake and that the Huffington Post article didn't really exist after all, so that can be disregarded. The "article" from the Calgary Herald is actually not about the book, but rather about the author (it only mentioned the book once). That leaves us with the academic review and the footnote. But a footnote can't really be called a non-trivial work; it's more of a passing mention. We're left with only the academic review, which is not enough to meet the book notability criteria (it requires two non-trivial independent sources). Therefore, I think the justification for keeping this article is quite weak. --Biblioworm 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm:, I've found two more reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Where? --Biblioworm 15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm: The Calgary Herald and Books in Canada. They came up when I searched via my college's databases, although I was able to find a copy of the BIL article that didn't require access. Both are fairly major outlets (or was, in the case of BIC), so they'd qualify as RS. That leaves us with three reviews, which would show notability, but I'd like to be able to find things that could flesh the whole article out as a whole. I'm going to drop a note at WP:CANADA and see if anyone there has read the book and could use the book to flesh out the article more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Galdi

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

Biography of a non-notable CEO, fails WP:BASIC. Most of the available sources are press releases and websites that are almost certainly owned by the subject's company, World Global Network. See the similar AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/World Global Network. - Mr X 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this could've easily been A7, MrX as there's not even much and it's unlikely there's much for him apart from World Global Network. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, SwisterTwister. The reason that I didn't nominate it for CSD A7 is because I removed the (unsourced) claims of significance.- Mr X 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 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 John Rampton. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Marketing for Professionals

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

Non notable book. Ireneshih (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are overhyped PR "reviews" and interviews. No independent in-depth coverage. The overly detailed author biographies, and statements like "The book contains 136 pages and 14 chapters, each divided into individual topics.", are just fillers with trivial information. The article is also most likely a re-creation based on the deleted version. GermanJoe (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to John Brampton for now? Until a better article can be made at least. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirect. The main topic is only barely more notable, but at least it survived an AfD as "no consensus". GermanJoe (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect This book isn't notable yet. The one source that could look to be both reliable and about the book is a blog, not Adweek itself. valereee (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Rampton. Not enough coverage to show notability of book at this time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 23 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drync

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

I am the creator of the page and SmartSE thinks that this I have a conflict of interest which is not a truth. I would like to move it to AFD to deny this claim. Ireneshih (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ireneshih, I'm very confused. Are you assuming that nominating one of your own articles for deletion will help you out in the sockpuppet investigation opened against you? I would suggest reading this and responding to the claim on the investigation page instead. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) --Pinging SmartSE.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I guess WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Even without sock puppets... This is just another app that tries to establish its notability by spamming product reviews. Ceosad (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So reliable reviews aren't what is required to pass the software notability bar anymore, what's next? Only software that has been used to reach the Moon will be notable? And surely you aren't suggesting that the article should be deleted because there's soapbox drama going on, as a means of punishment towards someone. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't given much credence to the Wikipedia:Notability_(software) essay, determining which software is notable is a tricky and subjective matter (as nearly all non-person,non-book notability discussion are). To suggest that "computer" books or magazines establish notability doesn't make sense in this context (as it would in the case of history or rare birds), so we're left to look at whether multiple credible sources are writing editorial and/or informative content on the subject. It's easy to cast aside software reviews, but they're presently the means by which nearly all modern software is discussed in an objective manner (unless the Wikipedia list of software is to stop in 1999). Older, less-noteworthy software that made it in with the "Wiki land rush" must not crowd out software that is more recent and noteworthy. Queries for drync show extensive writing on it by a number of sources with a style and substance that satisfy WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Wikipedia is not. Any investigation should certainly take its course and any misconduct be dealt with, but that would not seem to bear on a deletion request at this time.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy for now and I'm also thinking keep for this exactly as this is a start but may need to be stored aside until better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article seems sourced well enough to establish notability, reviews are what's nearly always requested in software AfDs and there we have them, and we most certainly shouldn't punish the readers (by deleting a worthy-of-inclusion article) for soapbox that's going on among some of its editors. LjL (talk) 13:07, 18 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Global Network

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

Article about a non-notable company that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The article's sources are a website with a poor reputation, a unreliable "award" website, a Forbes article that makes no mention of the subject, and a press release. This article caught my attention because of Fabio Galdi was recently created by an SPA, in what appears to be an effort to promote the subjects. Possible an Orangemoody connection? - Mr X 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 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. Sandstein 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Option Robot

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

Blatantly promotional, doesn't meet the notability guideline. References are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all). -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator, it is blatantly promotional. Should have considered speedy delete under the criteria of G11. Ayub407^talk 16:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ideally, there would be a redirect to something like Automated Binary Trading Scams. There seems to be a surge in campaigns for this and other similar services with lots of planted coverage and fake review sites. There are even sites that expose one service to recommend another! It would be incredibly useful if Wikipedia could provide genuine third party coverage, but that obviously requires third party coverage to exist. At the moment, I would only trust material from well-established news outlets or sites like snopes.com with some reputation in this domain. It's obviously not Wikipedia's role to expose scams, so probably this has to be deleted due to lack of independent sources. Vesal (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesal: I believe doing this could cause severe problems, I understand it may be a scam, but redirecting it to that without any definitive proof could be considered slanderous. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe Automated Binary Trading is a more neutral title, but this is all hypothetical since there are no independent sources to use. Vesal (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article (particularly the introduction) is written quite poorly (constant use of "they") and engages in advertising without really clarifying at points that Binary Option Robot is a product/service, and not a financial instrument or other construct. WP:Neutral point of view clearly applies here. That said, the sourcing, notability, and verifiability of the article are unimpeachable. There is grounds for significant improvement, but not deletion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is that "references are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all)." Please highlight which of these "unimpeachable" sources refute the nominator's point. Vesal (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It can be improved, deletion would only hinder it.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Delete per Kethrus.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eat me, I'm an azuki: Have you read the article, and looked at the sources? It primarily focuses on binaryoptionrobot.com, and if you see this revision (it hasn't changed much since then) it's blatantly for binaryoptionrobot.com, all they've done is clear the infobox and reword a few things. Furthermore, this isn't about "Binary Options" in general, as you can see by the title. Also, I've looked for sources by doing quite a bit of searching, there aren't many - so I've come to the conclusion it can't be improved much because the sources just aren't there. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as presumably a copyvio. may not be promotional for a specific firm, but clearly copied from another source: "We have found this brokers that robots usually recommend for trading: Banc De Binary, CherryTrade, Option FM, Exbino, Bloombex Options, GOptions, Porter Finance, Tradorax, Interactive Option, No1Options, RBOptions and IQoption." (I presume "this" was meant as "these" but I can not tell if the error was in the copying or in the original. There are similar grammar errors elsewhere, such as the final sentence.) DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Caldani

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

Seems to be an autobiographical article. Just doesn't have the sourcing to meet the notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 12:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches instantly found no better sourcing thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Pageants in Georgia (country)

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

I have no idea what this is about. Is Georgia Beauty pageants a company? Or is this article mean to summarise the topic of beauty pageants in Georgia? I can't find any WP:RS to indicate that Georgia Beauty Pageants is an annual event. I recommend WP:TNT Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3, an obvious hoax. You don't hold a beauty pageant to pick representatives to multiple other pageants. Established pageants make their own selections. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for a national pageant to select delegates to multiple international pageants. (Example: Miss Iceland). My concern for this article is that it is an obvious recreation of deleted material. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart if better later. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 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. No administrative action is required here. Nobody proposed redlinking any title and there is no justification for deleting the page history. Whether or not the British and Candadian etc houses have sufficient commonality for an overarching article is not a question best resolved at AfD. SpinningSpark 09:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons

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

If someone wants the HoC in Britain or Canada, they'll probably get to this page and click the links in the specific bodies section to get to their house where they can get much more comprehensive detail into their HoC. This article just seems a bit redundant and prevents people from getting to the disambig page faster. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to House of Commons of England, as that is the organization that first used the term. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely most readers will be looking for House of Commons of the United Kingdom? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 18:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps simply go straight to the House_of_Commons_(disambiguation) page. It still plays a huge role in Canadian politics of course. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 20:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, neither the UK nor Canadian government has sufficient claim to be an indisputable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, hence my proposed solution below, making this the disambiguation page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was an attempt at finding an unambigious primary topic...Deleteing and moving House of Commons (disambiguation) here is a better idea, though redirecting to the disambiguation page would work as well. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then move House of Commons (disambiguation) to this title. Fundamentally, that's what this is already: a disambiguation page, albeit one that's not at all compliant with WP:DABMOS. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - This is effectively a wordy disambiguation page when we already have a disambiguation page. Agree with the above: delete and move House of Commons (disambiguation) into its place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep in an effort to have this closed with consensus. As I say below, I don't have a strong opinion as to which we keep. It seems unusual to have what is effectively a disambiguation page contain so much prose, but that it's non-standard doesn't necessarily mean it's problematic, and it still does the same job, more or less. Will redirect the disambig to this title when it's closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page seems fine as the title should clearly be a blue link. It's the rival House of Commons (disambiguation) title that can be dispensed with. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a very strong opinion as to which we keep. My choice for the other one is more or less based on my impression that disambiguation pages (which this is and should be) shouldn't also be articles (effectively). Am I wrong about that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly pruning it). At the very worst we need to keep this as a dab-page. Details of the history of the British HoC (such as the subject of rotten boroughs) would be better dealt with in the article on the UK House of Commons. However, an article on all of them together, if brief and leading to more specific main articles is useful. Redirect House of Commons (disambiguation) here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to move the existing dab page to this title. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and delete House of Commons (disambiguation), per WP:DABCONCEPT. Too much information is lost from the encyclopedia if this is deleted. bd2412 T 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep, and delete House of Commons (disambiguation). There are plenty of sources that compare the parliamentary systems in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. (like this source). All this article needs is a few citations, but deletion is not the way to go. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). This is a clearly a case where we should focus on improvement rather than deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does Australia have to do with this? It doesn't have a house of commons. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, the article discusses "[r]oughly equivalent bodies," including the "Australian House of Representatives". I simply included the source above as one example of the numerous sources that compare parliamentary governments that utilize a House of Commons or an equivalent form of legislature. For a straight comparison of British and Canadian Houses of Commons, see this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong article for that. We have Westminster system for that job. We also have lower house and bicameralism. What we have here is a glorified dab page, like House of Representatives. They should be pared to down to simple dab pages, since all that the various entities have in common (and distinct from like things) is the same exact name. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with how the Australian government works, so you may be correct that comparisons in this article are unwarranted. However, it looks like the various Houses of Commons discussed in this article share much more than a name. Apparently, they share common historical antecedents in the English Parliament, they share similar functions, they share some procedures, and they share similar duties to the electorates in their respective countries. But the important consideration for the purposes of this AfD is that there are sufficient sources discussing their shared history and functions. See this source, this source, this source, this source, and this article that discuss the relationships between various Houses of Commons. Per WP:GNG, "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect House of Commons (disambiguation) to House of Commons, and move the DAB page content to House of Commons (per Peterkingiron's suggestion above). WP:DABNAME states that the disambiguation page name should be that of the ambiguous topic unless there's a clear primary topic. I think we're agreed that there isn't a primary topic in this case, and that the page shouldn't have any content other than the standard disambiguation elements. Neither page needs to be deleted for this. Tevildo (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo, why do think the page shouldn't have any content? Per WP:GNG, "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I have listed plenty of reliable, verifiable sources (see above) that discuss the shared history and function of the various Houses of Commons. A simple google search will reveal many more sources. I think a good analogy for how to proceed here would be to follow the model used article for senates. There are many senates around the world, but there are also enough reliable, verifiable sources about the common features of senates to justify a standalone article. At the bottom of the article for senate, there is a list of the various senates around the world. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is an acceptable approach for articles such as Senate and National Assembly, where the term is both widely-used and has a clear historical background. However, I wouldn't consider "House of Commons" to be an equivalent term, as it's not a widely-used name for legislative assemblies - "the various Houses of Commons" is really just the UK and Canada, rather than a more general concept. I would put any shared history between the UK and Canadian houses into the individual articles, and any more general history of equivalent bodies into Lower house. Tevildo (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to House of Commons (disambiguation). Agree with Tevildo immediately above: it makes sense to have a generic article about lower houses of parliament in the same way it makes sense to have a generic article about senates, but this article doesn't fall into that category – it just covers the couple of lower houses that happen to be called the 'House of Commons'. Aspirex (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think anyone is proposing that the article itself should be deleted, making House of Commons a redlink. The issues are:

(a) Should House of Commons contain substantial content, or just be a standard disambiguation page?

(b) If it's to be a disambiguation page, should it be at House of Commons or House of Commons (disambiguation)?

No admin action should be required to implement any of these solutions, and, if we decide to convert the existing article to a dab page, I see no objection to keeping the current page content in the edit history. Perhaps the article talk page is a better place for this discussion. Tevildo (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 07:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete the DAB page, as per several other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the content of this page with that of House of Commons (disambiguation), and then make that page redirect to this one. (Usually one bolds "Keep" or "Delete" or so on, but in this case I'm not sure which word best describes my proposed solution.) The problem with the current article, is it suggests that the "House of Commons of the UK" and the "House of Commons of Canada" have something in common, beyond having the same name, which they do not also have in common with other legislative bodies without that name, which is not true. The mere fact that Canada chose to stick with the "House of Commons" name, but other Dominions went with a different name, doesn't make the Canadian body more like the British one than (for example) the Australian or New Zealand equivalents. SJK (talk) 22:09, 24 October 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 Fatally flawed. This AFD was a mistake from the start, nominating two subjects with no apparent connection at all. Reboot this as two AFD's if desired, but this one is so flawed from the start that it cannot reach a consensus to do anything. Courcelles (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethan Nia

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

My multiple searches (Books, News, browser, highbeam, BBC, WalesOnline, South Wales Evening Post, Daily Post, South Wales, Argus, ITV and The Guardian) found nothing outstandingly good to suggest better improvement with this, this and this being my best results so there's simply no improvement or move target for this article existing since February 2009. Inviting recent editor TheGGoose. NOTE: I'm also nominating another obviously non-notable music article The Kings of Spain as my searches simply found nothing better than the listed coverage and what's more is that The Kings of Spain's website no longer exists therefore suggesting the band no longer exists themselves. This band's article has existed since August 2006 and was most likely started a band member or a fan. Notifying author Crummy. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @SwisterTwister: One is a soloist, Bethan Nia, the other is a band, The Kings of Spain. Why are they WP:BUNDLEed? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:24, 7 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:23, 7 October 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 19:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on "local interest" news coverage with no evidence of wider national or international media attention, of a musician notable only as a local busker. This is not a claim that satisfies WP:NMUSIC in and of itself, but there's nothing else here (such as having released albums, etc.) that does so either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a more substantive claim of notability and a wider array of sourcing, not limited to a single media market, can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's somewhat inaccurate to say the sources were limited to a single market. Yes, it is true the first five articles were broadcast locally, but the two most recent received national attention: Sebastian Brown was featured on the cover -- not a local subsection, but the national cover -- of the Toronto Star, which is the most widely circulated newspaper in Canada; and the CTV story aired twice on CTV National News, again, a nationally-televised broadcast, not a local edition. He also appeared on television in Taiwan, on a report by the CNA, which is that country's state broadcaster. To reiterate, this article has multiple reliable and independent sources, is the main focus of the articles published by those sources, and indeed has been the subject of wider national and international attention. this certainly satisfies WP:MUS number 1, and also number 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability): a Google search of "Ragtime Toronto" or "Honky-Tonk Toronto" yields several articles on this performer in the first two pages. Keep. Nate diddly (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #7, for the record, does not mean that every individual combination of "City" + "Musical genre" that you could possibly come up with creates an automatic inclusion freebie for one musician; rather, the particular City + Musical genre combination itself has to also be a notable, encyclopedic thing in its own right. For #7 to have any bearing on whether Sebastian Brown qualifies for an article or not, we would have to be able to write an article about "the Toronto ragtime scene" as an identifiable phenomenon of international interest — the criterion does not mean that every individual musical genre that exists at all automatically entitles the most locally prominent Toronto musician in that genre to a Wikipedia article, if that genre's Toronto-based "scene" isn't a thing that people outside of Toronto have also heard of in a substantive way. If "Toronto ragtime" were a thing that was getting international attention in international music media, then #7 would come into play — but #7 does not mean that you can just snap any city and any musical genre into a "most prominent of the local scene of a city" snowclone to create an automatic inclusion right for one local musician in every musical genre that exists in the city. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I still don't see how the article fails to satisfy #1, for the reasons I listed above. Nate diddly (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very convincing argument by Nate Diddly, it seems that the article already satisfies the criteria outlined by WP:NMUSIC in addition to the new additional criteria described by Bearcat. Keep. Erhik (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as there's not much else aside from the current information and my searches simply found some of the same coverage here and here (one of the links was also included at Books). SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC exists for a reason. Why are we inventing additional requirements for notability? Where are these new requirements coming from? Please refer to Wikipedia:List of policies, or cite some precedent. Nate diddly (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, the only one I can think fits best is music notability guidelines as the current sourcing does not set him apart from any ordinary musicians and will likely even need better coverage local notability much less all around notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured on the cover of the Metro -- the most widely circulated paper in the entire country -- and was featured on the cover of the Star -- the second most widely-circulated paper in the country. Again, not a page-17 footnote, but a full-on feature on the front cover of the two-largest newspapers in the country. And he was featured on CTV National News -- the most widely broadcast evening news program in the country -- and on the State Broadcaster of Taiwan. These clearly satisfy the notability guidelines, in addition to the new guidelines we've invented specifically for this one article, all of the information is well-sourced and detailed, the sources are professional, independent, and consistent. I really don't understand what more we're asking for. Keep, again. Nate diddly (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while you're allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as many times as you like, you're not allowed to make more than one bolded keep or delete "vote". Accordingly, that part of your comment here has been struck out.

As for the newspapers, Metro consists of several distinct local editions which do not share most of their content across markets; he may have made the cover of the Toronto edition, but he certainly did not make the cover of every edition. And the Toronto Star attains its circulation figures entirely by virtue of being the dominant newspaper in the country's largest metropolitan area — it does not have any significantly-sized readership outside of the GTA. And newscasts, even national ones, routinely carry human interest "here's somebody you've never heard of before who's doing something kind of cool" pieces about people who don't get encyclopedia articles just because that newscast carried that piece, especially when they can just borrow a piece already created by one of their affiliate stations instead of having to commit their own resources to producing a separate one. And as for the coverage in Taiwan, you keep asserting that but you haven't shown any verifiable proof that it's true — people routinely try to get their pet articles into Wikipedia by claiming that coverage exists which actually doesn't pan out when somebody actually tries to find it, so it's not enough to just say that it exists if you don't show it.

Ultimately, "what more we're looking for" is evidence that he's done something, such as having released albums or songs that are actually getting radio play, that would make him somebody that any significant number of Wikipedia readers are likely to have already heard of, in a significant, sustained and "will actually remember his name twenty minutes later, because they've already heard it more than just once" sort of way. If a person could get an article on here just because their existence was verifiable in two or three distinct sources, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and neighbourhood watch committees and coordinators of church bake sale committees — hell, we'd have to keep an article about me if that were all it took. Coverage can't just exist; it has to verify that they've done specific things that would make them a topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2<10. Please direct me to ten distinct professional sources about the same head of a church bake sale committee. Nate diddly (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any city that has even one local media outlet will always have at least a couple of dozen, likely far more, people who are active enough in the local community to get their names into media coverage on that local outlet anywhere from two to fifty times a year. (Just as an example, there's no such thing as a city councillor, in any city, who doesn't get media coverage locally, yet we explicitly deprecate city councillors as not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia except for a very rarefied tier of special cases — because even though all city councillors could always pass GNG on local coverage, the substance of that coverage almost always fails to demonstrate any particular reason why they would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia with an international audience.) And the more local media outlets there are, the more likely it is that both the number of locally active people who are getting their names into the local media on a moderately regular basis and the number of media hits they're getting are going to shoot up even further. But that still doesn't necessarily make them all suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia just because that coverage exists, if it's not covering them in a context that's of any substantive non-local interest (such as a musician having actually recorded albums that have actually garnered national or international release.) Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This is a screenshot of one of the CNA articles, but I can't find the originals because I don't speak Chinese. Nate diddly (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown is well-known in downtown Toronto. I work in the area and talk with a lot of people there, most are aware of him. Of course, anyone could make such a claim without evidence, in which case we should say, "Who cares?" But the extent of the media coverage speaks to the subject's notability. Erhik (talk) 21:48, 10 October 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 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Paço de Arcos

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

Unsourced stub about a Portuguese title of nobility. I was unable to find public sources to verify the information in this article. Additionally I have concerns that it may fail the notability guidelines. Mww113 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wish to side on keeping the article on the counts of Paço de Arcos. First, the article's references state the source of the content (including page number). Owing to the subject matter they are in Portuguese, as would be expected, including the [this] from which this general article was based. Furthermore, in terms of notability the Counts of Paço de Arcos have appeared referenced in other online resources, this general article only uses the "Count" variant of the Portuguese. Regardless, a search on the subject matter will discover other references to "Conde de Paço de Arcos" or "Conde de Paço d'Arcos", including examples of genealogical records, thesis and online research. As much as they may be skewed to the first count, the countship is discussed, noting the importance in the diplomatic, military and economic spectrum in the formative efforts in Brazil. I can also cite that there are online references to Henrique Belford Corrêa da Silva, 2nd Count, indicating the counts importance as well. I hope that this will justify the Countship of Paço dos Arcos/d'Arcos. I suggest that this content be considered a "stub", but that there are important reasons for keeping it.^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from what User:Zeorymer says, this is clearly not a hoax, but a genuine hereditary title of nobility. We have articles on every such British title; and I see no reason for not having them for other countries. The only exception for British titles is where the first holder was also the last, when we redirect to his bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 October 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. Unopposed nomination. Can be restored if more relevant sources are found. Sandstein 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A mid-ranking military officer. And a Deputy Lieutenant doesn't qualify either - it's just an honorary position. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain as others may be more familiar with this but I would also think this is a historic and interesting subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) Delete, or rather redirect to Grey Egerton baronets, delinking the article there -- Neither being a major, not DL, nor owning a substantial landed estate (which Oulton Park is (or was) is sufficient: clearly NN. There do not seem to be any links to later generations of the family that will be upset by this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 October 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: Withdrawn by nominator with no remaining votes to delete or merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Torrance

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

This article is about a character in The Shining. The article is completely unsourced, full of obvious original research and in my opinion it does not contain any verifiable information that The Shining (novel) does not adequately cover. Additionally, the article is poorly written with numerous typographical and grammatical errors. I recommend its deletion per WP:CITE, WP:STYLE, and WP:OR. Mww113 (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer wish to propose the article's deletion, however I think it may be a good idea to leave this open for a while to see if there is consensus for a merge or not. However, if someone believes the discussion ought to close, we can move the merger proposal to the article's talk page. Mww113 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I would like to withdraw the nomination as there no longer seems to be cause to merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to The Shining (novel). --Slashme (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) - The article now actually does a good job to assert notability and discuss the topic properly. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This character is the main protagonist in the sequel novel Doctor Sleep, as evidenced here. We need to focus on whether or not the character is notable enough for a stand-alone article; the quality of the article is completely beside the point, per WP:BEFORE. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable fictional character; I have added some commentary about Danny Torrance based on his central appearance in Doctor Sleep. There also appears to be commentary about Danny in The Shining (both the book and film). I also rewrote the lead section to give the character's fictional appearances more real-world perspective, such as who played him onscreen. Also support moving to Danny Torrance as the common name for the character. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mww113, Slashme, are either of you willing to consider keeping the article based on the overhaul? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to The Shining (novel). While my WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:STYLE concerns have been eliminated with the overhaul (which was quite nice, I might add), I still remain unconvinced that it should be a stand alone article per WP:BKMERGE. I think it would be more visible as part of the main article as I think more people are likely to search for The Shining than this character. But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone wants to present a good argument as to why the character is notable enough. Mww113 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the update and assertion that the character is notable in multiple books, I'm satisfied that there is no longer cause to delete the article. Major props to Erik for a major overhaul that saved this article. I will be withdrawing this nomination. Mww113 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per above. I think I'd need to see sources that do some substantial character analysis before I would feel the character is notable enough, but I'm open to seeing what else may arise during this discussion as well. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Keep - I think the sources that have been provided satisfy my concerns. It may still be worth having a separate discussion regarding merging the article, though Erik raises valid points about how that could best be handled. Very good work on bulking up the article. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mww113, Doniago, I added more content as seen here. When it comes to fictional topics, there will naturally be redundancy. An article about a work of fiction and an article about a fictional character will share content, but the focus will differ. I would agree that if a character appears in more than one work, it increases the likelihood of coverage of the character across multiple works. To have an article about a fictional character that appears in only one work, there would have to be a lot of coverage very specific to that character. If the character appears in multiple works, then a stand-alone article can be appropriate to consolidate all the significant coverage in a place that stands above any one article covering each work. I would also say in this case, Stephen King was apparently propelled to write Doctor Sleep out of others' specific interest in Danny's fate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, merging complicates where to put comparative content. Coverage about Danny beyond the original novel would not quite belong at the novel's article as it would in his own article. I think it is detrimental to balkanize the content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last comment, I've expanded the article by over 40%. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've removed my merge !vote: I don't think it's a problem to keep the article now that it discusses the character in a broader context and asserts notability. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 October 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. Sandstein 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lockhart

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

Stub on a Canadian artist. Lacks significant sources, both in the article and searches. I suspect it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but definitely draft and userfy as "Amy Lockhart filmmaker" found links here and there at Books (with most of 3), browser and the highbeam so this a case of top soon and we wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 15 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gretz

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

Non-notable musician. He may have been a drummer in several marginally notable bands, but he himself is not notable and there's nothing in the article that would be missed if it were deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as there's nothing to suggest better improvement aside from some News, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:16, 14 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Skies

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

Non-notable band. Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing good aside from this and this is the same type of artices I have been nominating and currently and am going to continue searching for as there's simply no improvement including this one. Pinging tagger RJFJR. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Double Door Inn

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any to support notability. No AllMusic staff review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose if there's no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Philippou

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

Only famous for a legal battle with Virgin, surely a case of BLP1E? Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been running a company that is a group which starting to become a competitor for the virgin group, doesn't that warranty a Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phathu K (talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as I found nothing better than links at News and browser and we can wait for a better article to be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BLP1E Secret (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 15 October 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. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 11:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Paganism

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

This page has numerous issues; I would like for the community at large to give their opinion as to whether or not it should be kept. I believe it was already deleted in the past, but I am not entirely sure of this. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was deleted via WP:A7 on 21 August 2015, by Sphilbrick. ~~Just by a glance I'm not entirely sure if this really expands on Modern paganism. The idea of this is already somewhat covered with this portion:~~

The term neopagan provides a means of distinguishing between historical pagans of ancient cultures and the adherents of modern religious movements. This category of religions includes syncretic or eclectic approaches like Wicca, Neo-druidism, and neoshamanism at one end of the spectrum, as well as culturally specific traditions, such as the many varieties of polytheistic reconstructionism, at the other. However, some reconstructionists reject the term neopagan because they wish to set their historically oriented approach apart from generic neopagan eclecticism. Scholarly writers often prefer the term contemporary paganism to cover all new polytheistic religious movements, a usage favoured by The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field.

I suppose that this could probably be redirected to the article on modern paganism. It's slightly a neologism in this specific format, but the above section does show that the term "eclectic" has been used to describe modern paganism so it'd likely be a reasonable redirect. I'm going to perform a little more research before making a final decision, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's considered to be both separate and part of modern paganism depending on who you read. Some classify it as separate, some as part. I've found two good sources and if I can find at least one more, I'm going to argue for this to be kept separate since the academic source argues that it's separate from modern paganism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect. I've found mention of this in reliable sources like academic texts and this seems to be viewed as separate from modern paganism to a certain extent. The article in its original format kind of gave off the impression that the above (now struck) paragraph would roughly cover this enough to where it'd be redirectable to the page for MP, but the sourcing I've added shows that this is not the case. On a side note, I can't remember if Llewellyn is reliable or not. I'm leaning towards not, but I've included it just sort of to show that this is a thing. It looks like part of the issue with finding sources for this is mostly because the terminology for this is a little loose. It is covered however, and mentioned as a specific version of paganism in this one by NYU Press. Part of the reason for the confusion is that sometimes it's sort of generalized with MP and other forms of paganism, but it is considered to be separate by its practitioners for the most part. I think that there's enough to keep, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is also termed "Universalist Paganism" per this source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding the term "Druidcraft" attached to it as well and it'd fit the initial version of the article, but this was put out through a non-academic publisher so I'd like to make a search for this term and find an academic source before putting this in the article. ([16]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this being merged and redirected into modern paganism, so I'm slightly altering this to take into consideration a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 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. Sandstein 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne McFadden

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

There's simply not much to suggest better improvement and although my searches found links for the theatre reviews here, here, here and here and I doubt that the fact they were reviewed suggests she is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The reviews do provide appropriate coverage to establish notability, but the material listed above and available elsewhere should be added and integrated into the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing at this time to establish notability. She has been in the cast of 3 productions that I find, but I find very little which actually reviews her participation. A 2013 review of a Wicked revival said her work was "excellent at preserving" the musical and a 2015 review praised her work and the "beautifully complex choreography". But those are the only two sentences I find that actually go toward "her" notability. No biographical information, interviews, personal data, etc. that would lend to a stand alone article. Clearly she has helped Wicked maintain notability and it may be that she deserves at least a mention in that article. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She's not currently mentioned at the Wicked article, but if she were it would be worth redirecting there. Also worth mentioning she's also credited as "Corinne McFadden-Herrera". But also including that name I couldn't find enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's an actress who has been in some productions of notable works, but that does not make her notable. The sources don't provide enough in-depth coverage to show she meets either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 15 October 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. Sandstein 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hofheins

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

Questionable notable and the best links I found were this, this and this. Pinging users GermanJoe and Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article just needs sourcing. Sources are available. Article, in fact, is already tagged for sourcing, which raises the question of whether it is appropriate to bring articles to AFD when they seem fairly clearly to simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is not the only issue here. The subject did not compose any of the music in the films listed in the article -- he composed the music for the trailers. Similarly with the list of television programs -- the subject did not compose the music, he orchestrated the work of others. As for the ESPN themes, it is difficult to see how those brief instrumental themes confer any notability on the composer (and I note that the linked articles don't refer to the theme music at all, let alone discuss the input from any one composer). In all, I see a man who is having a successful music-related career, but not one that is worthy of notice by an encyclopedia. Going back to the question of sourcing, I see that much of the article's current state was added by User:Nathanhofheins. I presume that this is the same person as the subject of the article (and, if not, my apologies to the user). It is reasonable for us to note that, if the subject himself is unable to find sources for his statements, the rest of us have little hope of doing any better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing: here's his IMDB page, he orchestrates, [17]]. Write-ups in Deseret news (he doesn't work for the church, so this is a reliable secondary source, more or less the same as anyone getting mentioned in a large, hometown daily: [18]. Changing my vote to delete, as WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but definitely does not meet the notability criteria at present. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 15 October 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley

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

Questionable notable and easily A7 with its current state and the best my searches was this, this and this. This has existed with basically no significant improvement since starting February 2009. Pinging past users Nikkimaria and Ground Zero. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve; article needs a thorough re-write, and sourcing. However, it is not a good candidate for deletion, The Rev. popped right up on google. Involved in what appear to be a series of scandals involving misappropriation of grants and donations. [19] , misuse of public funds [20] convicted [21] and given probation. He was a D.C. activist of some note, and a Marion Barry cronie. Certainly notable enough to keep. WaPo has lots of stories here: [22] on his good works and leadership, as well as on his financial skulduggery. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- From what I see in the article, I would have thought he was NN, but it sounds as if he is notorious. Is that sufficient to keep? No vote Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, his positive accomplishments can be on the page, along with his criminal activity. I have been involved with a somewhat similar situation at Matthew C. Whitaker, popular professor, real accomplishment, but most coverage is about his plagiarism, which has caused page-blanking and whitewashing, similar to the history of this page. The solution is not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve to give a full and balanced summary of the range of views available. The sources E.M. Gregory points to above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Washington City Paper pieces are well larded with speculation, innuendo, and sensationalism, and would have to be used carefully, but the Washington Post pieces are better, and several are substantial, such as [23], [24] and [25], and [26]. Worldbruce (talk) 00:15, 11 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Machines

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

Short-lived local company and my multiple searches simply found nothing at all so although there may be some sources archived and at local news media, this is enough to show the company never got noticeable attention and, at best if necessary, this can be mentioned elsewhere such as Edina, Minnesota's article about this company but I'm not seeing much need. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, the article fully admits one of its sources was basically a paid promotion, non-notable defunct company. Nsteffel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 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. No policy-based reasons for keeping stated. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramriddlz

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

Person's only claim to fame is that a famous person remixed or covered one of his songs, if I understand it correctly. The sourcing is thin as well. Not notable per ARTIST or per GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Migos article was created because Drake remixed their song. The article is supported by reliable sources such The Fader, Complex and Rap-Up. He is also has a EP released. You're against this article because you disagreed with my edits on the Fetty Wap accident, which was supported by reliable sources. Ramriddlz also did a interview with Vice Media, Inc. which is very credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm from Covina (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see his song "Sweeterman" was mentioned in a written article for Billboard. http://billboard.com/entry/view/id/132525
- Actually, I got interested in your edits because it was suggested you were a sock of a pretty prolific master. Anyway, it doesn't matter: the article should be able to stand on its own, and whatever you bring up here (minor mentions) doesn't add up to enough coverage to pass the GNG. Having done an interview and getting a song covered isn't enough. That story on Complex is just silly, and only a few paragraphs because there are no facts to cover ("[Ram and his manager] have managed to keep a low profile"--voluntarily?) Rap-up mentions him in one single sentence (a sentence about Drake and his banana). The Fader story is also about Drake (and Meek Mill), and has two sentences on Drake covering the song, with 13 words devoted to your subject. That's not significant discussion--it's not even discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than some links at News and browser and this obviously is not set for full article status. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this singer is pretty famous and is rising to popularity This guy is affiliated with Drake and his entourage. Of course there's going to be more information about him soon. His song "Sweeterman" generated interest in him. There's reliable information about him on this article and he attends Ryerson University. This article is more relevant than some other articles kept on Wikipedia.— Preceding comment added by 2606:6000:50C7:4200:FC55:4BBF:2D63:4316 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - getting back to policy reasons, not enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 22 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yale

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers. WP:PEOPLE states we should check WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Yale who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Yale differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Yale deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Yale's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by local press [27] and by other organizations [28]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those 680 people will also have another reason for notability. Those that don't should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yale was a Navy Cross winner, second highest award of the US Armed Forces. Few get this award, most, like Yales, are posthumous, for doing an act that you know is more than likely to result in your death. From a small town in Virginia, I am trying to get his portrait painted on his High School wall in Prince Edward County, Virginia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.182.70 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be WP:BIO1E. Their deaths are tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you account for time horizon? Yale continues to be covered by reliable sources years after his death. WP:BIO says that's enough to consider notability. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage still about the 1 Event. EricSerge (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that coverage by Fox News, Business Insider and Military Times can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Yale fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about time horizon. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Our notability guidelines don't care about date of birth, they only care about whether independent reliable sources cover the subject at hand. In this case they do. Period. Haerter satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

If that's the case then so does pretty much every other American serviceman killed or decorated in the internet age. Do you really believe that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, notability not established outside a single event, nor is his award sufficiently exceptional.--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not need to be established outside of a single event. Notability is only established by coverage by independent reliable sources. Classifying a Navy Cross as not being "sufficiently exceptional" as you argue is a subjective matter. WP:BIO is inconclusive in that respect as WP:SOLDIER was never ratified. However, by following WP:GNG and WP:BIO Yale satisfies our notability criteria as he has (1) received significant coverage (even after seven years after his death he is still being covered by reliable sources), (2) the sources that have covered him are considered reliable, (3) the sources that have covered him are secondary sources, (4) the sources that have covered him are independent of Yale, and (5) the significant coverage over an extended time horizon has created an assumption by itself that Yale is notable (the fact that a mess hall was named in his honor cements the notion that Yale is inheritable notable). Whether we agree with these or not is irrelevant in our mission, as this is determined by Wikipedia standards, not our personal ones. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A whole mess hall? Well, that cements it then, he must be notable! Er, no... Having a building named after you does not make you notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for others, and it's not uncommon for a part of a building to be re/named in someone's honor. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:41, 17 October 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. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Haerter

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers. WP:PEOPLE states we should check WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Haerter who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Haerter differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Haerter deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Haerter's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by the press [29]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be WP:BIO1E. Their deaths are tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you account for time horizon? Haerter continues to be covered by reliable sources years after his death. WP:BIO says that's enough to consider notability. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage still about the 1 Event. EricSerge (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that coverage by Fox News and Business Insider can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Haerter fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about time horizon. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Our notability guidelines don't care about date of birth, they only care about whether independent reliable sources cover the subject at hand. In this case they do. Period. Haerter satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then so does pretty much every other American serviceman killed or decorated in the internet age. Do you really believe that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SOLDIER. As Necrothesp has noted, the consensus is that one second-level award is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 15 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghofeyleh prayers

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

Does not seem supported by any reliable sources. No results on Google Books or Google Scholar. Only 27 results of low quality on Google web search. Anders Feder (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New References added But Mafatih al-Janan book is an authoritative source. Felestin1714 (Felestin1714) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can be improved because if not, we'll wait for a better article later. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is from reliable References.Article should not be removed. Felestin1714 talk 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot read the sources, but the article makes sense, despite the poor English. If verified, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its significance can't be evaluated because the content is unintelligible. If this is a notable topic, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch by somebody who can write understandable English sentences. Sandstein 22:08, 22 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naama

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

I simply haven't found anything to suggest better sourcing and improvement and I'm not sure if this is why the first nominator nominated it. The only thing saving this would be archived and offline sources but I simply found nothing to even suggest this exists. This has hardly changed since October 2007 (started by SPA) aside from one blanking and few other contributions. Pinging Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We sometimes have lists of people by surname, effectively disambiguation pages. This is potentially such a list. However, since both those listed have no article, they are presumably NN. Accordingly, there is nothing worth keeping as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 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. Sandstein 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Margaret Mackworth-Praed

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

SPA-created article about a probably non-notable Swiss-English artist. Ref #1-2 are common gallery infos (of the same gallery), ref #3 is mostly about her husband and covers the artist only in 2-3 passing mentions. Ref #4 doesn't point to any direct information about her. A Google search found no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[30] is a report about one of her exhibitions, but seems to be written by a connected author as part of university news. GermanJoe (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found a few links at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better at this time. Pinging user Cahk. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack basic coverage. Even the cited "Two Artists of Exceptional Talent" hardly mentions her. I found little more than was cited already in her article. The Visarte Ticino gallery (in FN4) link was dead and defaulted to their main page, but there were other mentions of her on other pages of their website, for example here on page 24. But fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Three of the eight hits in Google books were "Who's Who" bios of her husband, Paul Glass. One was a gallery catalog of her work from Galleria SPSAS. One was the exhibition catalog of the show "Acqua, terra, cielo, fuoco" running 16 September - 1 October 2000, which featured four artists. A third catalog was a gallery catalog of a 2 March - 5 April 2012 show. Textilforum (2001) listed her once in a sentence with several other artists and one Myths and Counter-myths of America: New World Allegories in 20th Century Italian Literature and Film did not mention her at all. --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 8 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Caledon Grey Egerton

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A junior military officer. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely unless this can be improved as I found nothing better than some Books links. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his war record can certainly be sourced to newspapers of the era. He almost certainly has an obit for the came reason someone has given him a Wikipedia page: he inherited a baronetcy. Also, he inherited a baronetcy, ergo, reliable sources on him exist. The lives of baronets get recorded. At the very least, there will be news reports of his birth, marriages, war service, coming into the title, and death. Tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a captain and inheriting a baronetcy have never been considered good reasons to give someone an article. You will notice that only first baronets usually get articles unless they personally did something significant. He didn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that would establish notability are cited here or in the article. "They are out there" is a weak argument, see WP:BURDEN, and nobody seems to want to argue inherent notability just because of the title. Sandstein 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article basically only covers 2 pieces of information about this person: that he was a soldier who fought in 2 wars and that he was married twice. The fact that he "received" a "baronet" is not even mentioned in the article, I had to learn that from this AfD. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:37, 17 October 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. Unopposed nomination. Sandstein 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Water International

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

Lacks available reliable sources for establishing the notability of this company per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and feel free to draft and userfy as I see no chances of better coverage and improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 October 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. The one "keep" opinion is unpersuasive, as all cited sources are genealogical - handbooks of peerages and such. Sandstein 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Grey

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

I can see no notability whatsoever here. No honours. Not senior enough for any inherent notability. Why is he notable? Looks like a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Humanity's longstanding fascination with aristocrats means that this scion of the nobility and his activities can undoubtedly be sourced more broadly (searches of the London papers of his era), although his position as heir to a viscount and the sources already in the article establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being able to find sources of his life events and being notable enough for a Wikipedia article are very far from being the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 7 October 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Now the article is well sourced and meets the notability criteria. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Brar

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

Subject does not meets WP:BLP and fails the notability criteria. Also the article lacks independent reliable sources; in current state the article have references either from self-published sources such as personal website, Facebook and partner sites which is the violation of Wikipedia's policy for use of reliable sources to establish notability. The article links to some reliable sources such as Times of India, which lacks significant coverage. In addition, earlier the draft was declined two times for failing Wikipedia's notability criteria and neutrality point of view. Draft submitter Coolkrc moved the draft to mainspace article even after AfC declines. His contributions to Wikipedia indicates conflict of interest or paid editing. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the AFD Sanskari ^Hangout (With grateful help from <+Chess> in IRC) Chef Ranveer Brar is notable because, according to criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE, one can be "regarded as an important figure" to be notable. In this case, you can see from the Sanjeev Kapoor reference ^[1] , he is not just well regarded by Sanjeev Kapoor, an renowned Indian chef, he is also well regarded by many other organisations, such as the James Beard foundation. Chef Ranveer is at par with the top chefs of the country, along with Sanjeev Kapoor and Vikas Khanna. He was the co-judge of MasterChef India season 4 ^[2]. He has many more accolades to his credit, validation for which have been added to the article. The credits for which I could not find anything relevant were omitted to avoid guideline violations. Request if this challenge can be reconsidered and the article reinstated. I assure you this is not a paid edit or service. If the challenge is w.r.t the facebook page inclusion, that was just one instance, reason being there was no other news ref at that time. But today I have found and included an article link from the Economic Times and removed the FB reference. Kindly check and advise further. Coolkrc (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Coolkrc: The facts and the information on the article has to be cited with the reliable sources. Where we do not accept self-published sources (including that of archived). The major concern of Afd is the notability which is failing as per WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE too (please elaborate how it is meeting the WP:CREATIVE criteria). In addition, as per WP:BLP and WP:GNG subject require coverage in depth. Also, it is request that please see How to contribute to Afd. (pining @Chess:). — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: thanks for your reply. This morning, I have edited and verified all the supportive links in the References section. Additionally some websites had archived or removed their articles, and I have amended those mentions. Have you checked the article post its latest revision please? They are all external sources. Please let me know. Coolkrc (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: WP:CREATIVE states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have already quoted a reference from Chef Sanjeev Kapoor's page to this effect. Chef Sanjeev Kapoor is an industry on his own and is world-famous!! I had also, when putting this article together for the very first time, added a whole bunch of external links which talked about Chef Ranveer to support my claim to his notability. But some admin asked me to remove that section completely!!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help in establishing notability. You need to cite the facts with independent and reliable sources E.g. Ranveer Brar is important figure^{[citation needed]}. Most of the reliable sources that you have provided does not have significant coverage about the subject which is required as per WP:BPL. Please note: WP:BOMBARD does not helps the article to establish notability. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: going back to my first question, have you checked the article after I have revised it this morning? As mentioned, I found out only today that some websites had removed or archived the links I had quoted and I have since changed or omitted them. Whatever I have mentioned in that article is supported by a reliable external reference Coolkrc (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: Yes and several times but still lacks significant coverage and does not meets WP:BLP. — Sanskari ^Hangout 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanskari: Do you suggest i add multiple references for 1 statement? Sorry, I dont understand what you mean by coverage here. If you see Sanjeev_Kapoor it is such a limited article with basic references. I have followed that simple model, by sticking to known facts and supporting them with valid links. If you google Ranveer Brar, there are pages after pages talking about him and his work. So help me here, in what more I can add in terms of coverage. I have added all he has done and been part of till now!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at [31]. If those don't establish notability I don't know what will. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Resolve@Sanskari: I presume you have gone through the google search results link thankfully posted by Chess (talk) above. These are more than enough to establish Chef Ranveer's notability as a celebrity in his own regard. Obviously I cannot include these in a WIKI article!! Moreover, whatever info had a verifiable external source, I have mentioned and recently updated as well. This celebrity chef is also due to be part of I Can Do That (Indian TV series) starting 17th Oct. Please see the program WIKI page to confirm. Can I take your silence as acceptance, and if yes, can this issue please be favourably resolved at the earliest? TIA Coolkrc (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: You can actually include the articles that are listed in the Google News search results as references. Just not the search page itself. Also, if the nominator does not withdraw their nomination, then you'll usually have to wait at least 7 days for the discussion to end. Since he nominated on October 7th, you have until the 14th about till the deletion discussion is over. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Thank you for that :) I'll try add extra references where valid and possible. Coolkrc (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JAaron95: Hi..why has this been relisted please? I was hoping the discussion would be resolved by today. Is this part of the deletion review process? From my end, I have added all valid references to support each and every point, there is peer support reference, references from newspapers and important publications, plus there is an ocean of Google search results to validate this person's notability, for anyone who wants to do a background check. Please advise. @@Chess: Help! Coolkrc (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolkrc: Yes, a discussion is relisted so as to allow another 7 days for the discussionto take place and hence attain consensus among editors. As you can see above, there's not much of a consensus. And so, this discussion is relisted. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now well referenced, and the number of TV shows the subject is/has been hosting, including being a judge on MasterChef India, establish plenty of notability IMO. I'm less impressed by the awards, as awards are ten a penny in this world, but the subject seems well notable without any need to take them into account. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 18 October 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. Consensus, though slim, was to keep after article's sourcing was improved. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui

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

Unfortunately this is another case where sources may not be easily accessible, if any exist, and without anything to confirm this information including after all this time, there's nothing to suggest keeping (We have different standards here so maybe Arabic Wiki can keep it where standards may not be as high and maybe someone can eventually improve it). This will need attention after all this time and definitely familiar attention if it is to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If we take the unreferenced article text at face value, he was a member of the Senate of the Kingdom of Libya, which would make him presumptively notable. But I cannot find any list of the members of the 1952 Libyan Parliament (especially the appointed upper house, to which this individual is claimed to belong). This is clearly an access and cultural bias issue; sources that list the members of the first Senate of the Kingdom of Libya must exist, but without access to them, our options are badly constrained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman, below, did an excellent job of providing exactly the sources that I was unable to locate. At some point, there will have to be an editorial decision about what the WP:COMMONNAME transliteration of his name should be. Our article is currently titled Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui, but uses Ahmed Rafiq al-Mahdawi in prose. The cited journal article below uses both Ahmed Refiq al Mahdevi and Ahmed Refik el-Mehdevi in its English abstract. That sort of thing didn't make sourcing easier... Regardless, that's an editorial issue, and not a concern for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. "Refik el-Mehdevi" is clearly a Turkish transliteration, al-Mahdawi would be closer to English practice. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to ask for a clean-up of an article. And the notability of the individual is easily confirmed. For example, there's a book published about in in 1991, by the title "The Great National Poet: Ahmed Rafiq Almahadoui". Another book was published in 1988, titled "Rafiq, Poet of the Fatherland: Studies on the Libyan Poet Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui and the Modern Literary Movement in Libya". Another book was published in 1968, titled "Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui, Libyan Poet in the Modern Era", and so forth. Here is a street named after him in Benghazi, https://books.google.com/books?id=lPaNiy3YisIC&pg=PA129 . Here an academic reference (with summary in English) for his status as national poet and Member of Parliament; http://ktp.isam.org.tr/pdfdrg/D01777/2005_22/2005_22_CEVIZN.pdf --Soman (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kerth

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

He seemed to have been somewhat well known locally but my searches found nothing convincingly good (particularly better coverage about him, some of these links are passing mentions aside from this, this, this, this and this. This has not changed much since starting in November 2005 and although there is no target, I thought of mentioning him elsewhere but there's simply not much weight. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His Post-Dispatch obituary [32] and follow-up articles about him [33][34] are substantial coverage that make clear he was considered an important and influential figure in St. Louis. Reasonable editors could differ on whether a local figure like this is sufficiently notable, in Wikipedia terms, to warrant an article; on balance I don't find compelling reasons to exclude him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm on the other side of the line than Arxiloxos. Do not feel the sources meet the notability criteria. The local coverage is sparse for someone to be considered notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's borderline, but I think he meets minimum criteria for notability. A brief trawl through Google turned up several sources which could be used to flesh out the article.--Aervanath (talk) 11:48, 24 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo Management Group

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

Questionable notable company and I found no better sourcing aside from this and I considered PRODding but I thought comments would be better. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 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 September 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ather Habib

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

I hardly see how he is independently notable let alone any chances of improvement here as the best links I found were this, this and this (for what it's worth, I found the same results with the second link at WP:INDAFD). The only other alternative to deletion is simply redirecting to Myself Pendu as it seems this may have been his best known work and I'm not familiar with this to know what his television work was. Notifying tagger Masssly and author Deepcruze. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 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 Black Lives Matter as I'm boldly seeing this is what she's best known for so it's unlikely any further time is needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Garza

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

No third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page. JudgeJason (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability outside of the BLM Movement and not enough information in this article to merge into the Black Lives Matter article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 October 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 and redirect as this seems best for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Tometi

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

No third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page.--JudgeJason (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage for her - it is primarily for her work with the BLM movement, but it's there. (See this news story.) I'm kind of unsure at the moment whether or not this should be redirected, given that she was on the movers and shakers list of a notable publication and there are some stories that focus more directly on her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Black Lives Matter per nominator. -O.R.^Comms 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." & invited to speak at Smithsonian Institution and Aspen Institute = significant critical attention. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those invitations is critical attention and she's an activist, not an artist anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:24, 9 October 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. Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsbridge Rugby Football Club

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

No refs, and other issues. 333 -blue 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. A low level amateur club. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I'm not seeing much good but feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 October 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. AfD nominator has withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Tamakoshi

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

~~Fails WP:ORGDEPTH JMHamo (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

WITHDRAWING MY NOMINATION as the article has been significantly improved. JMHamo (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For now. --Zaalim (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I actually fixed this before User:Sphilbrick deleted it and I've been meaning to restore it to its better state. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this can be rescued and have started working on it. Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rescue is fairly complete now. Brianhe (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of above and current state of article now that it's being worked. Appable (talk) 23:37, 14 October 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. Discounting the nominator's statement, which makes no sense, and the two redirect opinions that offer no arguments, we have clear consensus to keep. Sandstein 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Squire of The Canterbury Tales

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

It is totally a story. 333 -blue 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to The Squire (Canterbury Tales). R F,2015-10-07Z14:12.

Redirect to The Squire's Tale... JMHamo (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sympathetic to redirect and/or merge~~ - however the pilgrims have a role in the framing narrative. We should have an over-arching article on the pilgrims, or articles on them individually. I am quite certain there is enough RS out there! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep there is, as I thought, a wealth of sources, though a proper library would be useful. I have expanded the article and re-written some of it. Many references have been added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment With fictional characters of minor importance, we often merge to a list article. Any reasons we don't create a list on Chaucer's characters? Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a list for "The Pilgrims (Canterbury Tales)" but they are not of minor importance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect as I'm weighing both equally. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost infinite academic sources on the topic. Covers different issues to the Squire's Tale article. Many thanks to Rich Farmbrough for heavily improving the article. Brustopher (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prune then merge to The Squire's Tale, as a section on the Squire (who tells the tale). This is ultimately a FORK of that. Canterbury Tales is a very important literary work, but I do not think we ought to have more than one article on each tale. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with doing that is the interplay between the tales, the pilgrims and the characters in the tale. For example in The Reeve's Tale the character and cuckolding of the story Miller is certainly interpreted as a slight by the pilgrim Miller. And in the instant case, as I have just added, one queer theory interpretation of the General Prologue draws The Pardoner into the discussion about the Squire, as a foil. The Squire is also important for understanding The Knight - who is still wearing the clothes he was wearing when he returned from the war. How, one might ask, did the Squire manage to maintain his immaculate image?
That's even without the obvious questions of glossing the description from the General Prologue which the original editor attempted - take for example the last line And carf biforn his fader at the table. despite six centuries the language is understandable, but we need to explain that the custom was for the senior squire to carve the meat in front of the knight (twentieth century interpretation of the line might read this as an attempt at usurpation) and therefore this reflect on the Squire's success in his chivalric endeavours.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, essentially per Brustopher, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brustopher's analysis. To argue that there isn't enough critical commentary on Chaucer to support an article on one of his significant characters is utter barking madness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:19, 12 October 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. Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd economy

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

A very short article about a company, nominate for discussion because not CSD. 333 -blue 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a neologism, not a company (at least according to the text of the article as it exists when I'm writing this), and looks to be based on a single source, offering only a WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 11 October 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 There is a consensus that it does not meet the notability standards in its current state. However it is possible that the subject may meet these standards in the future. If an article can be made that addresses the concerns in this AfD it may be recreated. HighInBC 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Ávalos

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I think he technically meets WP:NBOX for his 4th round TKO loss for a vacant WBO inter-continental title, but it's hard to make a convincing claim when boxrec shows him ranked 248th in the world (and 18th among Mexican fighters) in his division. The boxing guidelines are quite generous, probably too much so. In any other martial art his record would not meet the notability standards. His success as a junior doesn't really add to his notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He meets WP:NBOX, but as Mdtemp illustrates he does so by a slim margin. This is a Mexican fighter that has fought all but one of his fights in Mexico, so I am not expecting English-speaking Wikipedia editors to find much on Google. That does not mean the sources don't exist, but that they are probably mostly in Spanish and are based out of Guadalajara (e.g., newspapers of that country). His one fight, the fight that was outside of Mexico, does have some coverage - [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40]. Most of this coverage is focused on his opponent, but that makes sense considering that the sources are in English (the native language of his opponent). I think this coverage, even if considered routine, establishes enough to show that the presumption should stand considering the Spanish/Mexico factors unless someone can otherwise show that we reasonable believe sources do not exist (e.g., do a search of hard copy boxing sources from Guadalajara over the last few years). Therefore weak keep. RonSigPi (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I usually go along with articles that meet an SNG, the boxing criteria are so generous with their plethora of titles and organizations as to be less than a crowning achievement. The only coverage I could find, I'd consider routine sports reporting. I also didn't find him listed on the Spanish Wikipedia. His meeting of the SNG by having one fight that qualifies (a 4th round TKO loss) is quite minimal. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. If someone provides significant non-routine coverage of him, or he gets more significant bouts, I'll reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 23 October 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 (G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion) by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Sri sri nitaichaitanya paramhansadev

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

Unsourced hagiography of a local holy man. No signs of any general notability, and even if any were to be found, this article would need to be completely rewritten from top to bottom to meet Wikipedia guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 7 October 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. KTC (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Beast

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

Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect as there's not much better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - Reads like an ad. poorly sourced. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a nice piece in Vibe, not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, definitely doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 30 October 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. Overall consensus to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Sialkot

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

This list is only slightly larger than what is already in Sialkot. SethWhales^talk 21:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- nothing that a category can't do. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list here is more than twice as long as the list that was removed from by Sialkot article by GreenCricket on 2 October. I would agree that currently the much longer Category:People from Sialkot does the job much better than a list that requires periodic maintenance. However, I could envision an annotated list, organized by occupation and then chronology that would be appropriate, assuming that the guidelines of WP:Stand-alone lists for criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources are met. Adequate background information, also supported by citation to reliable sources, would need to be included in the lead. I note, for example, that there are twenty-eight cricketers from Sialkot that currently have Wikipedia articles. That said, this is not that list, and I suggest WP:TNT. When and if an editor wishes to create a list that does not duplicate the category, and which in turn complies with the guidelines at WP:Stand-alone lists, including individual citations for sources demonstrating the connection to Sialot if such are not present in each person's article, then recreation would be a valued contribution. Delete for failure to conform to WP:Stand-alone lists. --Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done necessary edits and added more personalities so i think article should be kept and secondly i prefer to discuss this article with Pakistani wikipedian so decide whether to kept or to delete. I think it's enough GreenCricket (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable topics and as a reasonable WP:SPLIT from Sialkot, and per WP:CLN as complementary to Category:People from Sialkot. Lists of notable people from a notable place are completely standard, and I see nothing particular to this list that would single it out for deletion, certainly no unfixable problems that would merit TNT (and deletion is always an odd way to go about expanding content). At best we'd merge it back to Sialkot, not delete it, but WP:SIZE alone would preclude that as this could be expanded to well over 100 entries judging from the corresponding category. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's a list of notable people that qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:People from Sialkot. It can be expanded in many ways that categories cannot. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it seems to serve a purpose. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with references using Category:People from Sialkot and Category:People from Sialkot District. Mar4d (talk) 08:08, 11 October 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 Brookside. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Marot

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

Relatively minor British television actor; unable to find enough press to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely redirect to Brookside as it seems she was best known for this and had a long enough time to be noticeable for that but there's especially not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Some work, but doesn't appear to rise to the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 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, TOOSOON and even no evidence the results were ever published in refereed journals--Ymblanter (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum holonomy theory

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

No secondary sources available for this theory. WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that both of the references that I have added have either been or is in the process of being accepted for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Quantum holonomy - when that is created. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, its a little tricky, because "Quantum holonomy" is not directly what QHT is about - so I don't think merging to Quantum holonomy is a good idea. In QHT 'Quantum holonomy' is actually short for "Quantum holonomy-diffeomorphism", which we thought was too long for a title. If this article is not deleted then I will expand it with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. It is too early tell if this work will have an impact on the field. There are no independent secondary sources discussing the topic in depth, which is a requirement for having a Wikipedia article. (A topic must be notable, already well-known, first.) The two references are primary sources, one still a preprint. In Google scholar the published source has only been cited twice and one of those is the preprint. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree WP:GNG is not yet met, but there may well be grounds for merge/redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Could this be merged into quantum gravity until such time as it may deserve its own article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed there Quantum_gravity#Candidate_theories =>Other approaches. I sense that there are many more candidate theories than we list. Quite what the criteria should be for being included in this list is not clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator. I also note that User:jespergrimstrup appears to be a co-author of the two cited papers. It would be better to Delete and wait to see if an unrelated party thinks this is worthy of an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 11 October 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy W. Stutz

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

Unfortunately, this Vietnam War POW doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no doubt a brave man, but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and as a colonel without a fighting command with his awards, doesn't get close to WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think his decorations taken together are enough to scrape him by the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're being a bit inconsistent, aren't you? You lvoted delete for Jordan Haerter for a second-level award, but keep for a third-level one and a couple that are below that. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. Two third-level awards plus five other honours. That's enough for notability in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if third tier and lower decorations were considered for notability (which isn't the case in my experience), two third-level ones would at best equate to one second-level one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's productive to compare decorations and say two of one are worth one of another or whatever. I think we have to judge highly-decorated individuals who have received multiple decorations at various levels on a case-by-case basis. And my own feeling is that Stutz's decorations taken together do make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - marginal notability. could be sourced better. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC) (striking out vote of confirmed, and now blocked, sockpuppet). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "'Please Don't Forget My Dad'". Fort Scott Tribune. 1971-12-06. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
2. "Atchison Folks Honor POW as 'Mo-Kan Man". Lawrence Journal-World. Associated Press. 1972-01-19. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
3. "POW Nominee For Mo-Kan Man of Year". Atchison Daily Globe. 1970-12-20. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01 – via Newspapers.com.
4. Bracht, Mel (2000-11-12). "Powerful film tells of POWs". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
5. Stout, Howdy (2010-02-19). "Living the Code: Former POW shares tale with ALS class". The Journal Record. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
6. Ray, Mike W. (2012-09-28). "Former captive recalls past during POW/MIA breakfast". Tinker Air Force Base (United States Air Force). Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
7. "Leroy William Stutz". Military Times. Sightline Media Group. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Leroy W. Stutz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage about the subject in the 1970s when he was a prisoner of war and after he was released. There are articles about him in 2000 the The Oklahoman, in 2010 from The Journal Record, and in 2012 from Tinker Air Force Base.
Although he doesn't pass the essay criteria at WP:SOLDIER, he passes the guideline criteria at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep obvi enough RS, could be better written. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 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. Sandstein 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Andrade

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

Non-notable boxer - des not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage for WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramón Valadez for now maybe at least until a better article can be made and he may be closest linked to that fight. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an unusual precedent for boxers and flies in the face of common sense. Do we redirect all non-notable boxers that fought someone with an article to that article and since they fought more than one - to which article. The point is potentially moot since Valadez is not particularly notable himself and I will PROD it. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the significant independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX and does not have significant news coverage. Way too early for this article. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:34, 16 October 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. Will restore for anybody who wishes to work on the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osto system model

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

Non-notable system. Seems to have been copied from somewhere else but I can not find where. The Banner talk 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move sources from German Wikipedia- ~~no sources I can recognize from this version~~ Found the sources in the German Wikipedia. Poor translation from German. This article also exists on the German Wikipedia. See OSTO_Systemmodell. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the article to its German Counterpart. The originating article contains images and sources. Seems to be some sort of German Management System for large companies. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space until all outstanding issues are resolved. bd2412 T 13:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am not familiar with this theory, but I suspect it actually is notable, albeit most of the sources for it are in German rather than English. I think, if something is notable in German, it must be notable in English too, even if it is hard to find English language sources. Whatever the faults of the current article, I don't think deletion is the answer. (But I don't have a strong opinion on this.) SJK (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 1 November 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. Sandstein 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Ghibaudo

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the achievements to meet WP:KICK or the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Redirect to Alessandro Riguccini in case a better article can ever be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is the best option. It doesn't seem like to best idea to merge one fighter's article into another's. How do you determine which opponent to redirect to? Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:KICK (the notability criteria for kickboxers) and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 12 October 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 Move to Draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Esperanto Study

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

I declined a CSD A7 on the grounds that this event is organised by a notable body, but was reverted, so I'm bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why you tagged A7. 333 -blue 14:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, an indication of importance (as objected by A7) has been added into the article, the topic being the largest event of its kind (Esperanto learning camp) in the world. This claim is confirmed by several sources which add on notability as well (repeated articles in SME, a major newspaper in Slovakia, and an article in TERAZ.sk, the news portal run by the News Agency of the Slovak Republic). --Blahma (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy may be best here until a better article can be made. Pinging Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (WP:COI, I am a coorganiser of the event) The event was presented in national TVs (like on Markíza or TA3) and local TV stations (like on Turiec TV (since 11:00) or Central Live) and press coverage by national news. During last years auspices over the meeting took UEA, TEJO, Slovakian Ministry of education, chair of the region and major of the host city. There is updated article on skwiki: sk:Letná škola esperanta with much more information. I added big parts of the article, although partly by translating, however it was checked by skwiki's community. Now I am translating the skwiki's article into eowiki to make it possible to re-translate it into enwiki. --KuboF (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: OK, I have updated the eowiki's article, asked the community for polishing and the original author for translation. If there would be time problems, please move the article into Draft: to make it simpler for us to translate and polish the article. --KuboF (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:27, 22 October 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 and redirect to Emarosa. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Walden

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

Should be redirected to Emarosa. Subject fails to have enough notability on his own to warrant an article. reddogsix (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just redirected it yourself. This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirecting. Anyway, I've redirected it again and I'll revert any undone edits. If the redirect does not fly, I will support a merge to his band's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no reason to delete this article. The lead singer has enough notability to have his own article. There are characters that have full articles made for them, yet they are not needed. An example being Valentina Vostok Knuxfan 8:12 AM, 7 October 2015 (CDT)
Narutolovehinata5, Knuxfan has been contesting this (he also went to REFUND to contest it) and repeatedly reverting the redirect, which looks to be why RD6 brought it to AfD. It might be worthwhile to let this go through a full AfD because if it closes as a redirect we'll then have the ability to revert based on the AfD closure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I'm sorry that I've repeatedly reverted the redirect, and that I went to REFUND, I don't fully understand this process, and don't really know when or how these things are taking place. I can't code or anything like that for shit. So, sorry about the misunderstanding, if it needs to be deleted because it's not an adequate page, then fine. But is there not a way that I can get the topic to have an article made after it? The reason why RD6 requested it for deletion(redirection) was because he said the topic failed to enough notability to warrant it's own article, and I disagree. If the case was with my errors, and it being an incomplete page(I wasn't done editing it, and learned to use the sandbox after the article was already set for deletion), then I'd be fine with that, as I could upload a complete and adequate page later on.(or could I not?) Knuxfan 9:55 AM, 7 October 2015 (CDT)

We can always move a copy to the draftspace at WP:AfC and let you work on it there. Basically what you need to do is show where Walden has received coverage for things outside of Emarosa. The easiest way to do this is by providing coverage for singles and albums he's released by himself, if applicable. The other way to do this is to show that his other band is notable enough for its own article, which can be more time consuming and difficult, especially since it's an indie band. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm good with that. Do sales count as notability? Or likes/views on videos or music produced by them? Or analytics taken from a page of their's, like website traffic and such? Or maybe even social media followings, or is that reaching? Knuxfan 3:31 PM, 7 October 2015 (CDT) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, stuff like that isn't considered to be something that would give notability on here. These are all things that can make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but popularity (which is what this boils down to, essentially) isn't something that automatically makes something notable. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Now having a large fandom can sometimes make someone qualify, but that fandom would have to be extensively reported on ala Trekkies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emarosa as there's simply nothing to suggest better and I say this instead of deleting because I hope this isn't going to simply be restarted again without thinking if it should first. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 17 October 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. Sandstein 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy Riese

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

I have tried to find some reputable sources for this article and come up short. The structure of the page is also not the best and professional I have seen. This is a relatively notable location around the UCLA area (I have personal experience with the area myself having been a student near this area), but I do not believe that this restaurant is notable enough outside of this small microcosm to necessitate a Wikipedia page. What does everyone else think? GoldenSHK (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)GoldenSHK[reply]

Comment - The discussion was erroneously created as a "second" discussion when in fact this is the first, was created without an afd2 template, and never listed in a daily log. Fixed now--not comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable as a stand alone article and merge information over to Westwood Village article. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 October 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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David de Burgh Graham

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

Not notable as a political candidate (fails WP:NPOL). Doubtfully notable as a software-whatever and a trainspotter. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable as a politician yet, but there aree significant independent sources on his software career and trainspotting (more for the former than the latter) presented in the article that establish his notability. His role in Internet Relay Chat is discussed in this news piece once featured on Linux.com [41], and there's an in-depth piece on him in the Linux Magazine [42]. Graham's trainspotting (S2E9) is discussed in a British Columbian educational television network on the other side of the country [43], and he is cited as an expert in a Globe and Mail article on new train developments [44]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this seems notable, acceptable and adequately sourced for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since he just won election as the new MP for Laurentides—Labelle (already mentioned on and linked from that page), he now qualifies as notable as a politician under item 1 of WP:NPOL, in addition to the above reasons from other aspects of his life. I can dig up some articles discussing his political candidacy if necessary (note some of them might be in French), but it's unambiguous that he has now been elected as a member of a national legislature. Pensezbien (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed, just elected as MP. Here's one source: Élections fédérales 2015: Majorité de 1 475 votes pour Graham Altenmaeren (talk) 18:23, 20 October 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. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Noise

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

This has been around for ever without a single ref. The text seems to provide no special claim to notability, and as it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The founder seems more notable than the band, but there's still coverage. They seem to have an extensive catalog, and I've located several reviews of their work: [45], [46], [47], [48]. Also a few interviews and such: [49], [50], [51]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant coverage in WP:RS? Also the article says many of their recordings were self-released. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the history of the band, and it's not easy to find facts online. But they got reviewed by Spin, CMJ, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Punknews.org, which is enough for WP:BAND #1. I don't know what a "more important indie label" is, but they apparently released albums on Relapse Records and Alternative Tentacles, both of which I would think satisfy #5. Also, this is perhaps contentious, but they seem to have originated or had a hand in originating powerviolence, a genre (see [52] from Vice; also [53] from The Quietus and [54] from San Antonio Current). That would maybe satisfy #7. They have no hope of satisfying the other criteria, but they seem to be well-known and respected within their niche. If you're wanting an article in Rolling Stone about their history, no, I can't find that. I can do more digging to find articles about their history, but I don't think these are available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because of the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources provided - Notability does seem to be there by a bare minimum!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion was "relisted" twice by @Esquivalience: on Sept. 15--the first listed it on the daily log for that day, the second one commented it out. Fixed now. --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage identified is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 7 October 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 Brahmamgari Matham. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Swamy Ashramam

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

as per WP:Promotional and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Brahmamgari_Matham, which is the article on the village in which this building is located. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect to Brahmamgari_Matham. The photos would add to the other article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brahmamgari Matham as per the above two editors. Nothing to show enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 30 October 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 'Nomination withdrawn'

Snakes and Lattes

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

fails WP:CORP. suspect advert as created by single edit user. Coverage is all routine. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single edit user or no, there's actually a lot of coverage here - there's quite a few reliable sources beyond those already in the article - lengthy mentions in major sources like the Toronto Star. I'll probably add a few when I have more time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is substantial coverage in reliable sources, which are cited on the page, as well as additional sources available online, for example: [55] and [56]. Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG. None of that coverage is routine for a cafe. mikeman67 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added the above sources. I'll do more when I have the time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to Nwlaw63 for the recent Quality improvement efforts to the page. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 12 October 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--Ymblanter (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haxie

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

Has had notability tag since 2010. Does not seem sufficiently notable. Contains only 2 refs, arguably very low quality ref sources. David Condrey ^{log talk} 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially agree with Nwlaw63, thank you for doing the due diligence on this one. And also agree with SwisterTwister, that is, without prejudice toward recreation with a well-sourced article, at some point in time in the future. — Cirt (talk) 17:20, 12 October 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He Xiangyu

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

Advertisement: writing style is overly promotional. Wcam (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - japantimes, Time, and additional results that come up in google news search indicate that there is sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. I would agree that "Artwork" section is overly promotional, but that is not a sufficient reason to delete the article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now as it may need to be improved and if it can't after time, we can talk about it again. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as uninitiated and I won't be able to correctly interpret the sources, but searching in Chinese should help: [57][58] Promotional tone is still surmountable, unless you need a WP:TNT then no objection. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:58, 14 October 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. Please consider alternatives to deletion such as merging or renaming/refocusing. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of attractions and landmarks in Stirling, Alberta

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

This list is largely filled with attractions, landmarks and events that are not notable, lacking significant coverage beyond the local area, and therefore not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It appears to be a vehicle for promoting tourism in this very small community. WP:NOTDIR applies. Also, though there is no minimum population requirement, a list of this nature for a village of barely 1,000 residents is unprecedented on Wikipedia. Compare it with the others in Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city. There are over 100 urban communities in Alberta that are more populous than this one without similar sub-articles. Only Alberta's two largest cities, Calgary and Edmonton, have equivalents. Entries that truly do meet WP:GNG can be merged into Stirling, Alberta. Perhaps lists like this are more appropriate for the sister project, WikiVoyage. Hwy43 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above amended by nominator (in italics) on Oct-8. Hwy43 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A List of historic places in Stirling, Alberta could potentially be a legitimate thing, if the individual buildings listed have any specific and properly sourceable historic designation — there's no minimum population size criterion on that type of list, but merely a "there are enough things to list" criterion. But if you're adding random and subjectively-chosen and not especially historic entries like miniputt courses and information kiosks and fish ponds and restaurants and community BBQ festivals, then indeed you're crossing the line that separates an appropriately encyclopedic list of notable things from an indiscriminate tourism directory. The fact that the town has a heritage designation does not mean that we need to maintain a list of every single individual thing that exists in that town, if some or most of those things have nothing to do with why the town has that status. If there are enough buildings or sites in the town with actual designated historic status in their own right, then move this to List of historic places in Stirling, Alberta, retaining only the designated entries and stripping anything else — but if there's only a low-single-digits number of such sites, then just list them in List of historic places in Alberta and Stirling, Alberta and delete this. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This locality is recognised as a National Historic Site and so its features are of special interest. Consideration of particular entries and the structuring of the information are matters for ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 23 October 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. Sandstein 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sic psycles promotions

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

Article about an apparently non-notable organization. I am unable to find any reliable sources the cover the organization in detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. Pinging tagger Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not found any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yes the group exists, and some local events get mentioned (with sometimes a hat-tip to the organization), but not enough to demonstrate notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 12 October 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. The "keep" opinions mostly do not address the sourcing situation, which is all that matters in such circumstances, I'm afraid. Sandstein 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viswant

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

appears to have had a significant role in only one film, a film which does not yet have an article (the apparent link in the article is just a redirect to the article on the director) DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as I'm simply not seeing any better improvement here. Pinging users Josu4u, Oiyarbepsy, JustBerry and McGeddon. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Found that this article has done significant role in a film called Kerintha. Request all of you to take a look at the links which has been provided and as he is a famous personalty from Tollywood industry and is about to make one more movie, he deserves an article on wikipedia. kindly consider and do the needful. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any importance with this article. But in later we need to provide an article on Wikipedia for him. As from the references i cannot even find any websites which is listed on Google.Josu4u (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted DGG Found that this article is a well known actor from Telugu film industry and has earned a good name and fan base with his first movie "Kerintha". He is committed to other three projects in which one is going to be produced by the same production house of Kerintha. Apart from that he is doing some modeling assignments also. Considering his current and upcoming projects this Article will help many people who want to know more about him. Kindly consider and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrameshvarma (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted DGG If this article hasn't got any importance then his profile wouldn't be listed in filmibeat, check this link http://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/viswant-actor.html . Article has major importance and also check this link http://www.themangonews.com/entertainment/viswant-a-star-in-the-making. there are many links on web in-order to prove the article ethnicity. I request you to do a snippet. Request you all to undo delete Viswant article and consider the same. Itsmeesathya (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's a mere listing, like IMdB` DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @SwisterTwister: Thanks for the ping. Quite frankly, I had CSD'ed this tag when it was in this state. Itsmeesathya decided to remove the CSD tag here, which wasn't appropriate in the first place. Although there is an article for the film, the notability of the actor, even in the context of the film, doesn't seem to be substantial enough. --JustBerry (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted I understand the rules and regulations of Wikipedia but i see everyone opposing the article. yes i agree today it might not be famous to complete audience but relevant audience would like to know more about the article. so according to A7 clause i feel this article should stay and need all your support. May be in future the article may grow more in content and as the article is growing towards a good establishment Priya.wom (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Delete With all due respect, the article is about a significant person from Tollywood, just because you don't him doesnt mean that he should have a wiki page. He is doing decent contribution to the industry and is well know for his endorsements as well as his upcoming movies. So I suggest that this page should not be deleted. Devilishious (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It's clear to us that he is not very significant in Tollywood, or anywhere else. Please read WP:TOOSOON. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Oiyarbepsy i think you have given the correct criteria clause but forgot to read it. please have a look at WP:TOOSOON where it is clearly mentioned in Actors and actresses section that A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen in this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then. Look at the bold sentence and have a check. Here viswant movie is released & he has done a critically acclaimed role and suitable links are provided which is more then enough but still everyone are arguing without even understanding the whole clause in WP:TOOSOON. I request you all to go through this and this article Shouldn't Be Deleted. Itsmeesathya (talk) 16:41, 16 October 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. KTC (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoBoogie

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC JTtheOG (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete- Non-notable. Many self-published sources including youtube, facebook. as per WP:MUSIC. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero hits on all of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. clpo13_(talk) 06:01, 31 October 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. Sandstein 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentö

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

Questionable notability and article was created by the artist's record company. PROD was contested. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is possible to be done? popsonic-rec —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article by COI editor. Given the absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this individual satisfies the basic notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one properly respond to this? Also, what does 'your page has been patrolled,' exactly mean? Thank you for all of your help. I hope I didn't do something wrong, or put the artist's page/reputation in jeopardy by my lack of knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsonic-rec (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 October 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. An almost overwhelming consensus to keep here. There are contentions from a couple of users that there are no sources, or that there are sources but that they are of an insufficient quality, however these views do not seem to have found wide support amongst participants in the discussion. It should also be noted that the article has been significantly expanded since nomination, with the addition of many new references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise

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

Not that notable a sketch. I went through seven pages of Google hits and all I found was this, this, and this. Now, there is also this book, published by UP of Mississippi by a moderately known scholar of American popular culture--but that's the only "real" source to claim it's one of SNL's most popular sketches, so I'm not all that impressed with it. So, at best we have one published source and a few mentions, nothing more than mentions. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just have to alter search parameters to find loads of sources. Examples: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per being one of the most notable (and funniest) of the Saturday Night Live sketches ever, by its incorporating as a comedy device one of the most notable franchises ever. Indeed, while what was first nominated might have been seen as not in-depth or well sourced enough, what we now have is a well-sourced, incisive article that serves Wikipedia and its readers. Sorry Drmies, but while your original evaluation might have had merit, the topic is now shown as definitely notable. Kudos to Cirt for his diligence in expanding his search parameters and for efforts in fixing this one up. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Update: I have significantly performed a great amount of effort on research and writing for a Quality improvement project on this article. Please see this version of the article and assess its quality and whether or not this version after my Quality improvement efforts should be deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by the details in the article as a result of the expansion. The Woodward book is an especially meaty source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). While I appreciate that someone has put significant work into this piece recently, I have to agree with Drmies that it's just not that notable. It's already mentioned in the SNL first season article, and I think there is sufficient source material to expand that reference somewhat; but I don't see enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos to Cirt for their work. I was ready to withdraw, but while the article looks very impressive I'm still not that convinced. The AV club references, for instance--the one is totally shallow, the other has just one paragraph on our subject. Erik, you say that the Woodward source is "meaty", but at closer inspection it's really not that substantial: it's a biography of Belushi, who played the main part, so I suppose we can expect coverage--but it's hardly in-depth. It has three short sentences on the background, a paragraph on the rehearsal, and a summary of the skit, but no discussion of its effect or popularity or anything like that. So even while Dunne, cited once, says "one of SNL's most famous sketches", I still see not much evidence for that. I mean, CNN and the AV Club and Dunne as well claim it is, but it sounds as if there's some parroting going on here. So I still think a merge is the best solution. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage is one of the criteria, and that is less stringent than "in-depth" coverage, which is not in the general guidelines. I say "meaty" in the sense that the Woodward book addresses the skit directly and in detail, even if it is not the main topic, being its own chapter or section. This and the other sources come together to be an article that I don't find worth merging elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorJoeE, the appropriate guideline is WP:SIGCOV, which states, "'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." It has a footnote that says a one-sentence mention of a band in a President's biography is "plainly trivial". Surely the sources here address the topic directly even if it is not always the main topic in the material. In addition, merging to Saturday Night Live (season 1) would only swamp that article with details of only one skit. Per WP:SPINOFF, "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." I hope you'll consider this. A lot of good detail has been added here that cannot really be merged elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are essentially saying is that the article has become too long to merge -- in the same sense that the bank conglomerates were "too big to fail" when the housing bubble burst. Again, I understand that a lot of effort has been expended, and I'd hate to see that go to waste; but I still don't see enough "significant coverage" to satisfy notability guidelines and justify keeping it as a standalone article. Consensus seems to be drifting the other way, though. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it appears based on these threaded comments, above, that perhaps some from this AFD have yet to revisit the expansion and great deal of effort I've put into further research to improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination had merit when first placed, but the article has been completely overhauled since then and now demonstrates notability. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject rockets across the verifiability and notability thresholds. (I sense snow in the forecast.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article displays a clear merit for notability. Z105space (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voters keep saying that there is "clear merit" and "easily passes notability guidelines" -- but saying so doesn't make it so, and so far, nobody is offering any new source material to support that contention; and the old material, as Drmies demonstrated above, doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. I thought the sketch was funny too, but it's hardly immortal material. All of that said, I don't really care; keep the article if you want -- but this sort of subject matter is hardly "encyclopedic" by any definition that I'm aware of, and IMHO won't stand even the most liberal test of time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article in its current improved and expanded state addresses Themes, addresses Reception, and notes that many different sources call it one of the best sketches of all time. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable, and Cirt has managed to find many sources for this (maybe not from now, because this was 40 years ago, but if you use JSTOR, sources quickly pop up). Epic Genius (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I'm drawing 0 hits on JSTOR. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I should look at it myself... Epic Genius (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sigh, not every single source is going to refer to the subject by its exact specific name. You have to alter your search parameters and not be so stringent. For example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And DoctorJoeE, I have added even more new source material since your comments, perhaps you haven't revisited the article lately. Examples: The New Yorker, and The Hollywood Reporter, and Rolling Stone. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've swapped out a few sources in the lede, so that now it better explains why the topic is notable, per WP:LEAD. Specifically: Chicago Sun-Times called it "brilliant". Los Angeles Times called it one of the top ten best sketches of all time. Tulsa World called it "iconic". The New Yorker said "Belushi was perfect." The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Tom Hanks who said it was in the top five best sketches of all time. Rolling Stone placed it among Belushi's most memorable performances. Please see this version of the article for a comprehensive sourced presentation of the main aspects of the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most notable parodies of ST:TOS ever made. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion per request by Cirt sst ✈ 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 01:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and in depth article. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was made before I was born and I knew about it before seeing the article. It is one of the great works of comedy. Personal preferences aside there seems to be plenty of sources to establish notability and to support a proper article. HighInBC 02:16, 11 October 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. The "keep" opinions added since the relist merely assert notability, which is not in doubt, but fail to discuss the additional inclusion requirement that events must have lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS). Discounting these opinions, we arrive at consensus that this is (until now) merely newspaper-type coverage of current events. Can be recreated if new sources indicate lasting significance. Sandstein 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armanious family massacre

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

Clear WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The article (permalink) is largely WP:COATRACK for the larger issue of the Coptics and Muslims. It was determined that robbery, not religion was the motive. The event by itself had no lasting impact. The page was one of many created by a now-blocked user CltFn. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I do not see any coatracking, just reports in reliable sources of rumours that were apparently rampant at the time. Coverage was extensive, have your read WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a criminal murder/theft; committed by drug dealers. However, the response and coverage [59] at the time were extraordinary. Rumors [60] that the killing was a hate crime committed by Muslims against Coptic Christians made it a national news story. It is useful to have this article here, so that anyone hearing the echo of those old rumors can quickly discover that a garden-variety, low-life, thug was the murderer. But the rationale for keeping is WP:GNG: this murder got extensive, intensive coverage at the time, and in the follow-op of the trial. Rumors can make an criminal matter into a matter of national concern, and when they do, the proper thing for Wikipedia to do is to KEEP. Article needs improvement, I added a bit of copy and a few good sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth does this have to do with WP:NOTNEWS? What lasting impact does this crime have? There are hundreds, if not thousands of murders and robberies each day. That some people jumped to conclusions regarding the hate crime aspects at the time says what exactly? And what do you mean that it is not WP:COATRACK? Why is more than half the article discussing the religious angle, with comments from various religious figures, and Daniel Pipes etc.? Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting impact" is not a requisite, but, rather, an indication of notability. Please read WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the hate crime rumours live on in several books, [61]. This crime was notable, it just wasn't a hate crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "several books"? I found only three. One of them is a self-published book by a vanity publisher. The other is just a reference book, which lists purported hate crime incidents, originally published in 2005, with a brief, passing mention. The other one is also a brief mention by a book in 2005 (not sure what that is about, I couldn't figure it out). Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely. (Several: More than two but not many). At least three books describe it as a "hate crime". But reasers of those books who look it up on Wikipedia will get the facts. Remember that google book searches are not comprehensive. More like being shown the tip of whatever iceberg you're looking for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think vanity publishing (paying someone to publish your book) counts, I don't know what to say. Secondly, the other mentions are simply passing mentions of this being a hate crime in 2005 (which turns out not to be true). Even if this were true, does every hate crime have a Wikipedia page? This is precisely why lasting impact is important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, quite of number of books describe the incident as a hate crime. Published in Dutch and English, by real publishers, these include Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, 3rd Edition, Contemporary World Issues, Donald Altschiller, ABC-CLIO, 2015, ISBN 1610699475, 9781610699471. the 3rd (2015) edition lists this as a hate crime. It is no longer regarded as such by the police. I thing it's a good thing for readers to be able to check facts like that against a brief article in Wikipedia, because reference books can be out of date or in error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources about the case. The fact that it was widely believed / purported to be a hate crime or terrorism only adds to the enduring notability of the case. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample sources to show this has lasting significance and was not just a small news event. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Can you elaborate on what lasting significance this event has, and which sources show this? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KingsIndian, WP:BLUDGEON, here you repeat a question I responded to above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the various guidelines of WP:EVENT, including WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. It is not uncommon for there to be news reports of a murder, then follow-up about the trial, conviction, sentencing, and appeals. This is routine coverage of a crime and it fails WP:NOTNEWS, one of the exceptions to WP:GNG. Initial thoughts that was a hate crime were dispelled over the course of the investigation, and it actually did not receive much coverage outside of the NY metro area (i.e. fails WP:GEOSCOPE). A search of GBooks is not persuasive. One author listed it (tantamount to trivial coverage) as a hate crime in his 2005 book prior to the facts coming out[62] and didn't even bother to update it for his 2015 version.[63] If there was WP:INDEPTH coverage, I might reconsider. As Kingsindian mentioned, the other is self-published.[64] - Location (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. A handful of the many in-depth explorations of this event and its impact are blue-linked in my comment below. My efforts to improve this article, by bringing sources expolring it's use as propaganda (both accusations of Muslim-on-Christian hate crime, and accusations that incident was used to fuel fear/hatred of Muslims) have been removed from page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking of WP:BLUDGEON, I was wondering when you would come along to offer a reply.) WP:NOTTEMPORARY states: "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." This event never passed WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, or WP:INDEPTH so WP:NOTTEMPORARY is not relevant. - Location (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment173 words of the article's 689, about 25% deal with the crime and conviction. The article, it follows, is not about the murder at all, but about the innuendoes and suspicions re Muslims at the time, who had nothing to do with it. That is technically therefore a WP:COATRACK, the crime being an excuse to talk about Muslims as terrorists. If the article is to stay, those who back it should roll up their sleeves, wikify it, and create distinct sections, separating the actual facts of the case, with the huge load of circumstantial paranoia surrounding the case. As it stands the title should be changed to reflect the content, along the lines of Armanious family massacre: the Facts and Ethnic Suspicions .Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been tidied up, sourcing expanded. In addition to being a ghastly murder, this is s complex incident. Sequence is, roughly: Ghastly murder; no obvious suspects or apparent motive; Rumors and panic in urban community of Coptic Christians that Muslims are starting to murder Christians in Jersey just as they did back in Egypt; Rumors and fear in Muslim community that Muslims will be blamed as a group for murder by unknown assailant; Muslims show up at funeral to demonstrate empathy and solidarity with murdered family; Christians shout and shove (throw punches?) to drive Muslims away form funeral; Press coverage increases within region in wake of incident at funeral.(Headlinse like Musulmanes y cristianos protagonizan riña en funeral en New Jersey, UPI Latin America Service, 18 Januray) Prosecutors make unhelpful statements about how it looks like a targeted crime, not a robbery. National and International media coverage as a possible hate crime. At some point it emerges that victims throats were slit and rumors of "Islamist-style beheading" type hate-crime start. Substantial national press coverage of anti-Islam hate-mongering angle with headlines like: Killings rekindle flames of anti-Islam sentiment. (Tulsa World, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 23 January 2005) Then, ATM records are discovered making and IT TURNS OUT that this was a drug-related murder for the theft a quite small amount of money. Horrible, horrible horrible - but not a hate crime. No Muslims involved. Article could be expanded and improved. It should not be whitewashed as User:Dan Murphy attempted to do yesterday by removing sources and material about the brief but widespread press coverage of the possibility tat this was a hate crime. I have only dipped a toe into the massive caches of stories in news archives because there are only so many hours available. But I am persuaded that this should be kept, and The REASON why it should be kept is that there was massive coverage of this both as a possible hate rime, and as a possible thing that could be used to incite hatred of Muslims, and, because case had become notorious, there was ongoing coverage over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In choosing which of the many sources to read and a handful to add to article, I gave preference to ones freely available online.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is true that the article has been improved dramatically (permalink), from when I nominated it (permalink, diff with original), right down to the title (the original was a trashy sensationalist one due to Daniel Pipes): in no small part by the efforts of Dan Murphy. I feel bad about still asking it to be deleted, but it still is a random crime. There was a brief flurry of rumours about hate crime with random speculation (who knew that "slitting throats" is similar to "Muslim-style beheading"? words fail me). Still, nobody has given any evidence of lasting impact. A flurry of uninformed speculation in proximity to the murder does not pass WP:EVENT. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long afterwards, this murder was the poster child/selected photo in analysis of New Jersey crime wave.[65] I am back at this discussion, however, mostly to point out that User:KingsIndian is inaccurate when he dismiss news coverage of this incident as, "a brief flurry of rumours about hate crime with random speculation". In fact, coverage in major newspapers was extensive and in depth.New York Times "A Bloody Crime in New Jersey Divides Egyptians", Washington Post Investigators are looking into the possibility that Hossam Armanious, 47, his wife, Amal Garas, 37, and their daughters, Sylvia, 15, and Monica, 8, were slain by a Muslim angered over postings that the father wrote in an Internet chat room, New York Times Mourners Link Religious Feud to 4 Slayings, Philadelphia Inquirer The attack on a Coptic family rekindled feelings of hostility and mistrust between Muslims and Christians., New York Times Mourners Link Religious Feud to 4 Slayings, CBS News "Authorities insist a theory that a Muslim angry over Internet postings was responsible for the slaying of an Egyptian Christian family is just one of several under investigation" I found scores of such stories in archive searches. And an impressive number of stories revisiting this a decade and more later.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the incident is not a poster child for anything. The NYT article is an in-passing photo in a regional story on NJ crime statistics. It has no mention of any hate crime angle, as expected. All of the other links are in January 2005, in close proximity to the crime, when there was random speculation. I am still waiting for any demonstration of lasting impact. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, It is used as the poster child in that article, presumably because it was the 2005 murder readers would remember. (and also a child).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But note that KingsIndian fails to address my actual argument - extent and depth of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were 36 murders in Jersey City in 2005. There is only one article on Wikipedia about any of those murders. (See: Wikipedia's category on 2005 murders in Jersey City.) That is not an accident. The article was started with a political agenda (ongoing effort to make Islam/Muslims look as bad as possible on Wikipedia) and it continues. This "Gregory" fellow is obviously at Wikipedia with an unpleasant agenda. It is sadly not surprising that it's being tolerated to this extent. (Adding: Fer chrissake; the original version of the article was 75% about "rumors" that had already been demonstrated to be false at the time of creation, and leans heavily on the serial fabricator/propagandist Robert Spencer. So it goes.Dan Murphy (talk)

Curiosity piqued, I looked up Robert Spencer (author). I can see why Dan_Murphy does not like him. I fail to see what this has to do with news coverage of the Araminous murders. with notability. Or with me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't believe that you fail to see that the original version of this article resting almost entirely on Spencer's false propaganda has something to do with this article.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I hardly glanced at the original article before I googled to see what sources were out there. it's not worth spending much time on an AFD if it's obvious that there are not sources, or that - as in this case - there are many. So after a quick glance, I search for sources. I do, as I did here, add some of the sources I find if the sourcing looks weak. Sometimes I'm sufficiently captivated by some aspect of the article to go in and really improve it, really try to sort the issues out. other times I just point out that sources and notability exist and move on. More or less leaving the article itself to someone who is familiar with the topic, or interested in it. This case posed special issues because of the tendency of editors not only to delete what was obviously a notable incident, but of the article as it was to make it look like it really was a hate crime, while recent editors have tired to edit out the accusations/early indications that it might have been a hate crime - This, frankly, puzzles me because it seems useful to keep refutation of false accusations of hate crimes on Wikipedia. If I ever had heard of Spencer before today, I must have found him was entirely forgettable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note' Multiple reliable sources have today been removed, by a pair of extremely tendentious editors. User:Dan Murphy in particular appears to think that Wikipedia is some sort of video game that he can "win" by selectively deleting questions about his editing from his talk page, and by deleting sources from this article while it is at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate changes since the nomination. Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable event, plenty of reliable sources. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ. Just out of curiosity: have you ever not voted Keep for this kind of article? All I recall is a predictable Keep vote on every occasion, with no evidence of a reasoned opinion.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate, User:Nishidani. I don't see you editing at AFD very often, but I see BabbaQ here all the time, on a range ot topics, sometimes voting keep and sometimes voting delete. Please try to remember that WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a stub, sourced, i dont see any reason to delete. Donottroll (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify my position here. I would not have nominated the article as it currently exists, since it is no longer a WP:COATRACK article. Much of the objectionable content has been removed. But that does not mean that the article should exist. Nobody has even pretended to give any WP:PERSISTENCE based arguments that stand up to two minutes scrutiny. This was a storm in the teacup, was debunked, and everyone has since forgot about it. The editor who created it had nothing good in their intention, and has been since blocked for their various sins. Wikipedia space is practically infinite so I don't mind if it stays, but it is a singularly useless article, which nobody will read. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed in major national and international newspapers. It was discussed in major media for at least a decade (many sources have been removed form the article during this debate). More to the point, WP:NOTTEMPORARY Reads: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." and WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply because, as the articles I linked to above show, coverage was not limited to articles "published during or immediately after an event," it included substantive followup and "analysis or discussion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines given the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a routine news story. An event with no lasting significance. There's nothing really here other depth of coverage. While it may meet WP:GNG by that alone, it does not meet WP:EVENT which is also a notability guideline that points out in the case of an event depth of coverage is not enough in itself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Serialjoepsycho. Reading the article, it boils down to this: "Family killed in robbery, incorrect assumptions were made as to motivation which caused an isolated issue, story over." There is nothing actually in the article indicating a timeline of "lasting effect." Passing mentions in books are trivial coverage. Existence is not notability; just because somebody mentions something doesn't make it noteworthy. My television remote is not notable simply because it mentions a well-known TV manufacturer's name on it. This is, in historical context, just another crime and which, frankly, still seems to be coatracking religion by making a huge deal about it in the lede, when in fact it didn't matter in the slightest. MSJapan (talk) 15:44, 22 October 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. Sandstein 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince's Inlet, Nova Scotia

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

I can find no indication that this is a community.[66] There is a small bay (which seems non-notable) with this name, a road with this name, and a planning area with the name which includes several communities in the area. I can find nothing with the civic address locator [67]. I PROD'ed this article but User:Zpeopleheart replied with a reference that points to the bay, with a comment that is clearly a Wikipedia mirror. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search of the official Nova Scotia website brought up nothing except one document mentioning "Prince Inlet", a body of water. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's no good move target and no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 October 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. Consensus is for article retention. Also, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a later comment, stating "sure" about the notion of withdrawal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Gorch

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

I did the best I could do: the sources I found and added, that's all there is in ten pages of Google results. At best this deserves a paragraph in the article for the first season of SNL; by itself it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It was a good sketch in Season 1 of Saturday Night Live. The Muppet characters in this sketch were heavily praised and even made a cameo in "The Rainbow Connection" finale of The Muppet Movie. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you need reliable sources to prove these statements. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). I found a few other book sources - I think there's enough there overall to mention it in the SNL first season article - but overall I don't seen enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing lots of references, even if we just limit it to books and not other types of sources. More at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Have a great day, and remember to spend some time outside, in the fresh air, and take in the wonders of nature, — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agreed, there is little here that justifies anything more than a section in the SNL first season article -- if that. Yes, it was a "good sketch" -- but from a WP paradigm, so what? All parties involved quickly realized that it was a poor fit for the show, and the concept was abandoned. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of references easily available to perform a Quality improvement project on this article. Loads of examples, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with guideline WP:NPOSSIBLE that an article's quality or length or it not using available sources is not a reason to delete. While certainly any article within these pages could be whittled down and eventually merged somewhere else, that does not BUILD an encyclopedia. While AFD not intended to force improvements, I believe in WP:SEP and in my attempts improving this project for its readers (and I've had some small successes doing so) I would far rather improve something myself or seek other's help in improving if I have weaknesses. I look beyond present state and instead look toward WP:POTENTIAL. This topic, spoken of in |more-than-trivial manner in numerous sources (thank you Cirt, for always looking beyond an AFD template's fallible "Find sources") is notable per guideline. We improve that which is improvable, for even in its admitting it is itself imperfect, deletion does not always improve a growing Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Please note -- I've expanded the page with sourced material, and improved its quality greatly. Please visit this updated version of the article to evaluate whether this article should be kept or not on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.~~ — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this pointer, since the subject of the article is only peripherally related to NYC. BMK (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live has been an integral part of the culture of New York City, per Saturday Night Live (season 27). But no worries, won't post there again, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massively improved. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's much better now; sometimes a Sword of Damocles provides the necessary stimulus for improvement. I still don't think this sort of subject matter fits under the category of "encyclopedic", but others clearly do -- so, fine - keep it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DoctorJoeE:, thank you for acknowledging "Yes, it's much better now". Since you've changed your view to "so, fine - keep it" -- will you please strike your "Merge" comment, above? — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't changed my mind so much as yielded to majority opinion, but I have stricken the comment. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY, and kudos to Cirt for his work. Someone ping the nom and see if he wants to withdraw this. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Per request, above to ping the nom, made by Jclemens. And my thanks to Jclemens for the kind words about my recent Quality improvement efforts. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully sourced article and notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 12 October 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] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20150512233128/http://sanjeevkapoor.com/Starchef/Ranveer-Brar

[2] ttp://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food/master-of-spices-4/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgie_Aldous}} see article's talk page
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NBA players who have played in the Chinese Basketball Association}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe Hodder}}