Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:01, 19 November 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 November	20 November >

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 I normally wouldn't close this myself, but it's a painfully obvious snow keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs)

Allie X

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

This article subject is not notable. She is still early in her singing endeavors. She has not surpassed the threshold of notability and fails WP:GNG. She may have sang a song that briefly charted but that makes the song notable not her. Notability is not inferred to one by a song or book for Fodor example. She fails WP:GNG because she herself has not received significant coverage coverage over numerous [WP:RS]]. Unreliable sourcing has been rampant in the article to include no logs, Twitter, YouTube, and also almost half of the citations are only interviews from from unreliable sources. It is just WP:TOOSOON WordSeventeen (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage indicated by the given sources. Previous AfD on this article confirmed notability, and it is not temporary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per all previously listed reasons and because of your WP:IDHT of so many policies including WP:MUSBIO instead of the general notability guideline. SanctuaryX (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WordSeventeen? Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Allie X had 11 keep arguments, and the only delete argument was the nominator. (Er: you.) So it wasn't close. Is there a reason that you think she became less notable since that nomination? Has it been revealed that half the sources on her page were actually written by her brother-in-law? Have Wikipedia policies or guidelines become noticeably stricter since that time? Has she written a letter or had an interview since that time in which she asks that her article be removed? In short, what's the reason you think this nomination will fare any differently than the last one? --GRuban (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article subject fails the notability test because she herself is not notable since she does not have significant coverage across numerous WP:RS that wikipedia considers reliable. see: WP:VERIFIABLE So she fails WP:GNG. Perhaps a single song that charted may be notable, but notability is not conferred on her, sort of like a child does not inherit notability from a parent. Also almost half of the sources presently in the article are from "interviews" connected with unreliable sources such as online companies that do not provide editoral oversight. Combining unreliable sources with WP:INTERVIEWSs taken by non-oversighted companies makes the sourcing dubious at best. Zpeopleheart (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was a 'snow keep' at the last afd and this person seems clearly notable. Some of the sources might be shaky, but that is a different matter. She gets a non-trivial mention in the quality UK press, namely the Guardian. Oculi (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage on Google News to fill up a decent article, including [1] from Variety, [2] from CBC.ca, [3] from The Oakland Press, [4] from Vice, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and NinjaRobotPirate's sources. clpo13_(talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she might be an emerging artist but she is considered notable according to references like CBC News, Billboard and Variety, to name a few. Janbryan (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has 13 references, at least some of which are to reliable sources. One of her singles is reliably sourced to having a chart number, which makes it notable in itself. If her single is notable, then why does the submitter keep insisting that she is not notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSBIO #2 by having a top 100 Billboard hit. (edit: I just checked AfD #1 to see I !voted on exactly the same criteria. Plus ca change)Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 23 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan-Claire Green

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

Not a notable actress. Her only notable role was in School of Rock over 10 years ago, and it wasn't that big of a role. JDDJS (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable and nothing to suggest otherwise. Considering this has been relisted twice without further comments, I'll take drastic measures and notify some users familiar with this subject Onel5969, Rms125@hotmail.com and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, it was really quite easy to begin fixing the "perceived" issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry but this child actress clearly passes WP:NACTOR. She's had significant roles in 5 films, 3 of them starring gigs. Of the 5 films, 3 of them are currently notable School of Rock, Forgotten Pills, and Wild About Harry. One of the others, in which she had a starring role) is most likely clearly notable - Come Away Home, due to the budget and the cast (indie film who's cast includes Lea Thompson, Thomas Gibson, Paul Dooley, and Martin Mull. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She does not have a starring role in any of the three notable films you mentioned, and I don't really think that Wild About Harry is a notable film anyway, but that's a different discussion, JDDJS (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nicely ~~approaching~~ meeting WP:ACTOR and, even if choosing to ignore the coverage related to her Young Artist Award nomination, she has enough more-than-trivial coverage for her other works in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. We try to fix weak articles when possible, not delete them. And in an aside, the 2005 film Come Away Home has enough coverage to merit an article, and I may create it myself. Y. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as it was easy, I just did so. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the efforts of MichaelQSchmidt showing subject passes WP:NACTOR. - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant roles,now well sourced 185.12.190.145 (talk) 14:08, 21 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Hawkins

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

Not a notable actor. JDDJS (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 19 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. Unopposed nomination Sandstein 22:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving armature alternator

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

Can anyone please explain what this article is about?

Alternator is notable and we have an article on it.

As a specific type of alternator, this alternator makes too little sense to even begin to clean it up (see Talk:).

As one local installation of alternators, it might make some sense but would be better merged to Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park. However that article already appears to contain everything useful from here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic may be notable as I've seen some sources giving it passing mention. It doesn't appear notable enough for it's own article, but would be relevant as a small rewritten subsection the alternator that could be considered for a split if it ever reached that point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 19 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salford City Radio

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

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything on this station at all, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 19 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Strate

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

Article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since April 2008. Only reference provided is his bio page at his university. Article reads like a resume. No indication of notability in the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The activities described here look like a typical professor's, puffed up to look bigger, and the citation record does not convince. I don't see evidence here of passing any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not, in my view, pass WP:SCHOLAR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 29 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. KTC (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Spio

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

BLP with borderline WP:N, fails WP:V, combined with promo only (recent) editors. The Wired source indicates some notability but either WP:TOOSOON and combined with recent promo only editors (one of which has a draft of a previous deleted promo sockfarm). Readers would be better served by WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promo socks blocked User:Hollenderek User:Botamy007. This article listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Stuart Styron Widefox; talk 00:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. possibly speedy. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 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 keep. National League Cup is notable (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Finnish League Cup

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

WP:NOTBALL. 333 -blue 14:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you reasons for not nominating articles for the the cup 2008 through 2015, 333-blue?Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable tournament with concrete information available. By the logic used by the nominator, 2016 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup and 2018 FIFA World Cup should also be deleted simply because they are future events, despite being well documented. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. Giant Snowman 21:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination criteria appears to be insufficient. C 679 12:57, 21 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kings And Comrades

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

Reference #1: Authorless "JamBase" article, looks like it is probably a kind of press release Reference #2: LastFM, "Artist descriptions on Last.fm are editable by everyone."— band bio probably written by one of its members Reference #3: ReverbNation, only a track listing and short self-written bio Reference #4: Jambase again, here the band is mentioned only trivially in a lineup with a lot of other bands.

None of these references meet the criteria of being non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. If this is the best that the author(s) can come up with, then this band, which has no record label, fails to meet the guidelines at WP:NBAND as well as the requirements of WP:GNG. Also likely to apply here: WP:GARAGE. KDS4444^Talk 14:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea where to comment this, since I'm European and not used to the English lang. version of Wikipedia and all boxes and places to discuss you use. I want to state following.

1) I, who created the article on Wikipedia about Kings and Comrades, am not a band member, have no connections to them and has never met them. I have never been to America. I was listening to them on Spotify and wanted to read about them and could hardly find anything on Internet. The little I found, I cleaned from advertising and band promotion, and what's left is only facts about the band and therefore an encyclopedic text. It's free from band promotion. Many articles about other bands on Wikipedia sounds like homages and adorations, but not this article.

2) Sanmare, who wrote the biography about Kings and Comrades on LastFM, has the same status: doesn't know the band, is not American, has never met or talked to any band members. He is from Sweden, a country quite far away from USA and Philadelphia, where the Kings and Comrades are based. Can't this be proved by checking the IP or something? I'm no computer expert.

3) Yes, the sources are poor and I wish there where better ones, and better sources may show up in the future. Most info is on the band's own Facebook page, and that source has been avoided. I have tried to only leave the facts about the band. Article is encyclopedic and not promotion. The band exists, the band has the named members and has made the mentioned albums and songs, they can be played on Spotify, YouTube and other places, and the band participated in the mentioned concerts. So the article should not be erased from Wikipedia. Have a great day, --Caspiax 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

Delete - There's no obviously better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual types produced some reviews ([5], [6], [7], [8]) in sources that are neither on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources recommended sources list nor on their sources to avoid list. Like JamBase and ReverbNation, however, they do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. Arguably the best of the bunch is the review in The Pier, which, for example is by a recent marketing graduate who works for a music venue and for Skunk Records and writes that he "wrote reviews and got into shows for free, a perfect trade-off." Further searches of the Philadelphia papers, reggaereport.com, and www.roots-archives.com turned up nothing more than gig listings. Therefore does not meet WP:BAND. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Jaidi

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

Being the palace chief of security and bodyguard of Mohammed VI isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep chief security of the palace in Morocco is a very senior position within the security apparatus. Additionally meets GNG as there are ample sources in the Moroccan press (e.g.). One magazine (quoted in the article) even did a whole issue on him. --Tachfin (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Data Exchange

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

It looks like this is a software program. Article has no references, and the only link within it is to the software developer. I am not seeing enough material to warrant a notability claim for this. KDS4444^Talk 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This looks like a single use account for an advert. I would even CSD it. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I would have done too, Yossiea, except under which criterion? I have found that if I CSD an article and it doesn't fit into one of the CSD boxes (e.g., if I use the "custom rationale" tag), the nomination will get declined (which is frustrating, when I can see so clearly that an article such as this one warrants deletion under speedy terms). Suggestions?? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 07:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found exactly what the article contains, no solid in-depth third-party coverage overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 26 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manluluyong

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

No good sources of any kind that I looked up online mentions the Manluluyong, so it probably fails on notability; I'm not declaring it a hoax this time. TheGGoose (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I can't find any good English-language sources online. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax - does not exist outside Wikipedia; according to my research "luyong" means "background" and not "hover" —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:31, 19 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 no consensus. NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Ladki Badnaam Si

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

How is this unreleased film notable? Sources (including those mentioned on talk page are very much not good enough. TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and with WP:INDAFD: "Ek Ladki Badnaam Si" "Desh Gautam" "Rehana Sultan"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hordley Acres

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

Article fails to cite sources mentioning Hordley Acres; I also can't find any. TheGGoose (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly a hoax. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided, none found in searches. Might be a hoax but in any case no notability has been established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I first saw this when it was nominated but waited....my searches found nothing at all even to suggest minimal acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 30 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hume MRT Station

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

Trying to have a peaceful discussion here. Why do we even need this article? Unlike NS6 and NE2 which is not built, this station is being built similar to Bukit Brown as a shell station. However, that's all we know. Unlike Bukit Brown, LTA "DID NOT" announce any name for this station. In fact, there is no "official" source saying that this station is called Hume. The only source i can find is from an artist rendition of this station (which is not even from LTA). Should artist rendition even be used as a source? In fact, artist rendition for circle line 6 already exist even before LTA announced the circle line 6 (with different station name, 1 of them being Marina Coastal). Hence artist rendition should not be used as a source, only official source from LTA etc. Please see also WP:CBALL, WP:RS and WP:OR. In fact, NS6 Sungei Kadut, NE2 Bukit Permei or Keppel (before the name is used for CCL 6), NS12 Canberra (before being officially announced) and Marina Coastal (from the artist rendition of CCL 6) are deleted from wikipedia for the same reason: spectulation. -115.66.225.183 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC) copied from article talk page after request on my talk page. -- GB fan 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offer no opinion on the afd at this time. -- GB fan 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason stated above (In fact, NS6 Sungei Kadut, NE2 Bukit Permei or Keppel (before the name is used for CCL 6), NS12 Canberra (before being officially announced) and Marina Coastal (from the artist rendition of CCL 6) are deleted from wikipedia for the same reason: spectulation). Also, there is no articles linking to this article. -68.68.96.83 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I could not find the station name or code (DT4) on any official press release by LTA. In addition, I could only find the code DT4 (but not the name Hume MRT Station) in this article. It should be noted however that the artist's impression of the map on the article doesn't show any station with code DT4. As of this moment, it seems that LTA has not publicly stated any intention of building a future MRT station between DT3 and DT5. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 24 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gain (information retrieval)

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

What this article describes is nothing more than "relative improvement over chance", an idea which is not specific to information retrieval (nor even to computer science) and which is probably not complex enough to warrant its own article. In fact, it's sufficiently trivial or obvious that it doesn't seem to be covered in the surveys and introductory books I've consulted (such as Manning et al.'s Introduction to Information Retrieval). To the extent that there is any material here worth salvaging, it would be better placed in precision and recall. Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article is true, except that gain is not necessarily defined in comparison to a random baseline and is not specific to classifiers even in IR. But the concept of gain is not in the glossary from Modern Information Retrieval either, nor in the index of my 1999 edition, nor can I find a research paper that makes a point of defining it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Coughlan

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC and parked entirely on primary (sales profiles on iTunes, his own Google+ profile) and unreliable (YouTube videos, blogs) sources. The closest thing here to a valid source is an interview in the Yorkshire Times — but it's a longstanding principle of AFD that because they represent the subject talking about himself, and are thus subject to the same problems as a primary source public relations profile, an interview cannot count toward the meeting of GNG and may only be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can ever be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local musician not even satisfying general notability guidelines, no better notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 26 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 09:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dertogada

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

Like the current deletion nomination for the author, available here, the subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. The first reference link no longer points to the article's subject, but when it did, it was probably a listing for purchase on the distributor's website. The second reference is also a void, and the entire domain has since closed down. Given the murky nature of the notability claim for the author, the fact that even on the Amharic Wikipedia the article on this subject has no references, and the otherwise unknown nature of its claim to notability, I think it probably needs to be deleted from the mainspace unless someone can produce some independent, reliable, non-trivial references in either English or Amharic. KDS4444^Talk 17:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As follow-up, the article on the author of this book, Yismake Worku, has now been deleted twice, once on July 26, 2012 under CSD A7 and once under regular deletion three years later. The author of the book has linked to this article through his Facebook page here. While it might appear from this or this that the book has been the subject of some independent scholarly work, the publisher of both pieces is Lambert Academic Publishing which specializes in reprinting Wikipedia articles and selling them. KDS4444^Talk 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting the idea that this article is a translation. This is another AfD which needs someone who knows this language! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 03:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's clear there is a translator for this version so there may not be English language sources. The single source provided is not a reliable source and unfortunately there aren't any reliable sources I can find either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 7 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson DeWolfe

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a musician, parked entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single 70-word blurb in a reliable source. While there is a potentially credible notability claim here under WP:NMUSIC #4 (touring), that has to be supported by reliable source coverage of the tour, and cannot just be asserted or parked on a non-notable blog — and furthermore, he didn't undertake that tour as a solo artist in his own right, but as the lead singer of a band who don't have an article yet. (NMUSIC also clarifies that a musician whose notability is band-dependent, and is not notable for anything outside of that context, gets a redirect to the band and not a standalone BLP.) And the only other notability claims even being attempted here are of the "X number of followers on a social media platform" variety, which does not constitute encyclopedic notability in and of itself. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON — he may eventually get there in terms of wikinotability, but nothing that's been written or sourced here gets him an article now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I don't feel that this page meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Delete --Azure Anteater (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not solidly notable and the best I found was some minor News coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even sure it passes #4 of WP:NMUSIC - 12 dates is not what I would classify as a national tour. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 27 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. KTC (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Grace

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC — as written, the article just asserts that she exists, and parks on WP:GNG-ineligible sources like interviews and blogs rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON — she might potentially qualify for an article in the future if and when she's done more and garnered more real media coverage for it than this, but nothing here gets her an article today. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:NMUSIC. clpo13_(talk) 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 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 merge to Tocks Island Dam controversy. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tocks Island

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

No references, no notable content, seems to fail WP:GNG -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tocks Island Dam controversy. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge from Tocks Island Dam controversy The dam was never built and the controversy relates directly to the island, rather than vice versa. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tocks Island Dam controversy. I can't find much out there (other than passing mentions) that isn't connected to the controversy. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 28 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garba Gashuwa

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the possibility that he actually is notable enough for inclusion, and the article just doesn't do a good enough job of explaining why — in a country whose literature I'm not personally familiar with, I can't rule that possibility out. But the possibility of people confusing personal unfamiliarity with outright non-notability is exactly why an article has to be supported by reliable source coverage. The only source here, however, is somebody's Ph.D. thesis, with the publication details given as "unpublished" — and that doesn't cut it even slightly, because "unpublished" means we have no way to consult it to verify anything. So I'm willing to reconsider this if some quality sourcing finds its way into the article before closure, but in the current state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was easily trivial mentions Books and browser. Notifying tagger Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is not much evidence of notability in the article, but notability is defined by the topic of the article, and does not depend on the content and quality of the article. A quick search shows that Garba Gashuwa is mentioned in several books, including Algaita: Journal of Current Research in Hausa Studies, Poetry, Prose and Popular Culture in Hausa and Unity, democracy and development in Nigeria in the 21st century. I am sure there is more in Nigerian books that I cannot reach through Google, as well as in Hausa language books that I cannot read. Martinogk (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention is not an evidence of notability and having authored or co-authored one or two books does not translate to passing WP:NAUTHOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:10, 27 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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock This Bitch

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

Non-notable song. There isn't even a good target redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 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 "delete" arguments are stronger considering the state of the article, which is substantially unsourced and reads like a promotional text. May be recreated from scratch with reliable sources, if any can be found (none are cited here, ony serach results). Sandstein 22:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAPP Zambia

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

I have found no reliable third-party sources for information about the organization DAPP (Development Aid from People to People) Zambia, and the article provides none. The few news stories I found thru Google seem little more than reprinted press releases. As such, the topic seems non-notable (Wikipedia:Notability). Its only reason for existence seems to be advertising or promotion (WP:NOTADVERTISING), which ~~would explain why~~ seems logical given that "Elise Soerensen" is both the listed director of the organization and the username attached to ~~some recent~~ a number of content additions. Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article describes what the organization does, and mentions nothing for which it has become notable (which may be because it is not). I found no evidence of it being discussed non-trivially in reliable independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is notable in Zambia, as it is frequently mentioned in the Zambia Daily Mail and other national media. No need to be notable outside of the country, as that would disqualify more than half of Wikipedia articles about organizations in the United States. Quality of the article could be improved though, and especially references. Martinogk (talk) 10:00, 26 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. Sam Walton (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Lujic

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG.}} Simione001 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a WP:FPL nor in senior international football, thus failing WP:GNG. Not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:56, 19 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 redirect to Michael Perry (author). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turntable Timmy

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, search brings up nothing reliable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm bringing up some stuff via my college's database. There was a Remix mention, but I'm not sure if that's an article or an advert. I also brought up evidence of an article in Newsday, but I can't actually see the article since it isn't available for me. The article was "He Plies His Art by The Book Now" by Corey Takahashi and was in the 3/02/2003 issue of Newsday. Offhand I'd recommend redirecting this to the author's page, if I can't find anything else out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. The author's article has some issues with notability itself, but given that this isn't the topic of discussion there's no reason why this can't redirect. All I have at this point are four sources. The first, Boston Herald, is fairly brief and while there's a slight bit of a review this is more a list and not a review. The AWN link does announce the cartoon, but I can't find anything about it past then, meaning that it looks like this animated series never got off the ground. So no notability from that angle. The Remix source is dodgy for the above reason and the Newsday source would probably be usable except that I can't access it - if anyone can access and verify it, we could probably use it. However that really wouldn't be enough here to assert notability given how weak the others are, so I'd say redirecting is the best option here unless someone can bring up other sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 December 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) 02:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Nose

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

Reads, in its entirety,

Pretty Nose (c. 1851 – after 1952) was an Arapaho woman war chief who participated in the Battle of Little Big Horn in 1876.[1] Pretty Nose's grandson, Mark Soldier Wolf, who became an Arapaho Tribal Elder, served in the US Marine Corps during the Korean War. She witnessed his return to the Wind River Indian Reservation in 1952, at the age of 101.

WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB EEng (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the size of page is a reason to delete, is it? JMWt (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I can't seem to find any other sources on Pretty Nose. There's more information on her grandson who was the actual subject of the Al Jazeera story. He could be a plausible draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, move to draftspace based on Legacypac's comments below. There is a possibility of sources to expand upon based on the image it seems. At the moment the stub isn't much but there could be enough later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why are you suggesting it should go to draftspace? JMWt (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discuss the notability of the picture not her personally and I think there's enough that with some work, there could be significant coverage found. As is, it could be moved and remade into an article on the image I guess. I can tell it's a minority view and I may strike it out again if I see sources about her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Image on Commons

. *Keep this is a hard name to search but the extensive use of her image alone should qualify her as notable. Frankly she is pretty famous for a women of her time, or even today. Here [9] she is indexed to Page 3 and she appears on the cover. A photo of her [10] and [11] (scroll down 50% of the way) and a different photo here [12] and [13] and in the ref article another version [14] We know she was photographed at Fort_Keogh. While not named, her photo is the only one used to represent the native warriors here Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn#Native_American_leaders_and_warriors_in_the_battle. The photo and her are mentioned as an important event here 1879_in_the_United_States#Undated and her photographer Laton_Alton_Huffman is well regarded, with this being one of his more famous photographs.

Also Pretty Nose is used to represent natives here [[15]]. Her picture is the center of a mural here [16] and found here with the Montana Historical Society [17]

There seems to be enough info to do a short bio on Mark Soldier Wolf as well. [18] a photo collection on him [19] a blog only [20] multipage coverage in a book [21], portrait at Buffalo Bill Center [22], page 10 of this book [[23]] since he has had coverage as leader of his tribe and for losing his land to a uranium plant. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some updates to the article. We are not likely to find a ton of info (she predates the internet) but the photo really is widely used and notable. We have plenty of articles on historical figures with not a lot of detail. The fact she lived past 100 is not her claim to fame (unlike other old people bios at AfD), its her role as a female war chief in a famous battle and the fact her photographs are quite famous. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems to me that there are two issues here. First, is a person notable because their photograph is well noted? I don't really know. Second, do we have enough sources to show notability for this person? Very difficult to say - do we know how many chiefs there were, how often characters are painted onto murals etc? But in general, I think saying that someone is notable because their relative did something and we have well used photos of her is probably pretty weak. That said, I'm coming down on the side of keep as the stub that it was until/unless someone can find more relevant secondary sources to cite on the topic. JMWt (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A shame Phaedriel (talk · contribs) isn't around anymore, she may have some idea where we could look to get more info on Pretty Nose. That having been said, I think the article meets our minimum inclusion criteria and can remain here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until stronger delete reasons are given CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put links to a book or two that covers her in what appears to be multiple page detail but I could only see the index page. Finding an obit would be great. I did not do book or journal searching, just targeted Googling with her tribe name etc to weed out results that just had Pretty Nose as common words. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 20 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 and redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Sandstein 22:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Dolan

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads, in its entirety:

Margaret Dolan (27 July 1893 – 2 December 2004), of Tuam, County Galway, was the oldest woman in Ireland when she died aged 111. Dolan was affectionately known by her friends and family as "Maggie" in the village of Corofin, where she lived. She was a non-smoker and a teetotaller. She believed that what kept her going was being young at heart, despite her advanced age. She was an avid reader until her failing eyesight stopped her in her later years of life.

WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB EEng (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. WP:LPI with no claim of significance beyond her age. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Despite the even more fascinating insight to be gleaned from one of the sources, namely that she lived in the U.S. for two years but returned to Ireland after the stock market crashed, I don't think there's enough here for a stand-alone bio. Maybe a mini-bio on the Irish Centenarian page? David in DC (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Non-notable person who received marginal coverage on the sole basis of age. Better covered as a one- or two-sentence entry in the Irish supercentenarians list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Snappy (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most coverage of her appears to be trivial or otherwise of the kind that does not satisfy WP:N. Redirecting can (and usually does) occur following deletion. Canadian Paul 18:44, 26 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 nomination withdrawn Canadian Paul 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gergely András Molnár

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

Alternative search term:

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

Single-sentence stub, WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB EEng (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with new sources re military honors. EEng (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like he received the highest military honor of the Republic of Hungary —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add a couple of appropriate sources to the article on that I'll happily withdraw my nomination. EEng (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from a translation of hu:Molnár Gergely András he perhaps received hu:Honvédelmi Érdemérem. Would that qualify? Hopefully someone speaking magyar can help us. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how prestigious this award is. I assume very likely that it is highly prestigious. But that would need verification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that the last Hungarian WW1 veteran was Franz Künstler. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter since reliable sources state that Gergely András Molnár is, so Wikipedia gets to use that as fact. (Won't be the first time something like this happens!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Molnar received the highest honors for his country being awarded the First degree in National Defence is that high enough? Or, should we wait to see if someone can trash my efforts per norm? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my nomination. Good work! EEng (talk) 19:52, 20 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 and redirect to List of British supercentenarians. Sandstein 22:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Butler

AfDs for this article:

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

Born, married, widowed, moved, died. WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB EEng (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. WP:LPI with no claim of significance beyond her age. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third nom now. As previously, meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. WP:LPI with no claim of significance beyond her age. The two other deletions discussions really offer nothing of note. One ends in no consensus no real arguments. The other for keep contained only one argument.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. That page already has mini-bios. What little we know here can be put in a mini-bio. This is precisely the solution "no stand-alone article; include it in a list" that WP:NOPAGE was created for. David in DC (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. Non-notable person who received marginal coverage on the sole basis of age. Better covered as a one- or two-sentence entry in the British supercentenarians list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N for a stand-alone article. Redirection can (and usually does) follow deletion. Canadian Paul 18:46, 26 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 redirect to List of British supercentenarians § British supercentenarians. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexina Calvert

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

As usual, born-married-worked-died. Fluff includes, "Calvert celebrated her 110th birthday in 2008; visitors left gifts of flowers and chocolate, and Calvert's 85-year-old daughter was also present." WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB EEng (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. WP:LPI with no claim of significance beyond her age. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say the LPI point is one frequently applicable to these longevity subjects. EEng (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with the position of redirecting.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Concur with the above. Also, WP:LPI is a significant point that ought to be brought up more often in these longevity-based bio AfDs. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 16:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Nothing but WP:ROUTINE info in the "article". Should not be a stand=alone article, per WP:NOPAGE. Fancruft accreted onto WP by hobbyists. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. It's not a web-hosting service for longevity hobbyists. David in DC (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians. Non-notable person who received marginal coverage on the sole basis of age. Better covered as a one- or two-sentence entry in the British supercentenarians list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 19 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 speedy delete. Creator requested deletion (G7). — Earwig ^talk 07:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeMel Humes

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

Not historically relevant Cerisecastle (talk) 02:01, 19 November 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 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Cerisecastle: You created the article, and now you say subject is "not historically relevant", why? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the nominator/creator is the only significant contributor to the article, it may qualify for deletion under WP:G7. clpo13_(talk) 20:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:07, 23 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. Sam Walton (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Samala

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

Autobio, page creator is the subject. Low notability as well. JamesG5 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least for now. He gets some mention for Columbus, but as far as I can tell The Hindu interview is about all there is that is more than passing mention. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 20 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. I am happy to draft/Userfy upon request. kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Online

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not have independent sources to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company has notability:

These are major British newspaper with significant coverage. The article definitely needs work though. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Apprentice UK winner set this company up, it is just a marketing agency with little sales. Maybe one day it will be a notable company, but probably not, and now not even remotely notable. There are a few refs related to the apprentice as expected. Already deleted once, nothing has changed from what I can tell. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if actually needed as none of this suggests solid independent notability for a better notable and acceptable article yet. Notifying past AfD users Tom Morris, AllyD and Michig. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the point of the previous Afd at the end of January, the website had not yet been converted from concerning climbing to that of the SEO firm, so I suppose the previous argument doesn't stand. However, what is noted with the Keep opinion above is some coverage relating specifically to the winning of a reality TV show in December 2014 - which can be discounted as notability is not inherited into that of a subsequent company venture. (All of that is best placed with The Apprentice (UK series ten), if at all.) The article itself is referenced to one subsequent online posting by the company founder (WP:PRIMARY) and an online interview with the same person, about his life since winning the contest. What I am not finding is reliable in depth coverage of the firm itself, as is required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 16 December 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Educational Services Limited

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising. References consist of various mentions and press releases advertising the program. Borderline notability at best, and borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good for deletion reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as News and Newspapers Archive found some links but maybe nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup but not grounds for deletion of a notable organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. Aakash is quite popular here in India and has received lots of news coverage, that can be used as references. I am in the process of cleaning up the article at Talk:Aakash Educational Services Limited/sandbox (since the article itself is semi-protected). 103.6.159.65 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the update in the sandbox above, I would say that one is closer to removing most of the advertising nature of the article. It is one of the top educational coaching services in India, so the notability is there. I was going to replace the material from the sandbox with what is currently in the article, but I would rather wait for the result of this AfD first. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; from the developments above I feel comfortable !voting keep. We can always bring it back here. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:51, 10 December 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Navegantes

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). Juntas de vecinos are not a legal recognition of a place, because they are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. Villa Los navegantes is a little neighborhood (of 200 inhabitants) with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. War ko ^talk 01:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reasons; the only reference of this articles is a list of representatives of local organizations on the Municipality of Pichilemu, that is not a legal recognition of the neighborhoods:

And the rest of articles in Category:Neighbourhoods in Pichilemu. --War ko ^talk 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are not notable geographical entities. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: juntas de vecinos are garden-variety neighborhood associations. All of these articles on subdivisions of a town that itself only has a population of 13,000 constitute excessive coverage. The likelihood of an enwiki user searching for one of these locations is extremely remote. Vrac (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholesale. Everything in Template:Pichilemu too, including the template. Totally non-notable junk about a village of less than 14,000 inhabitants. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This will serve as a precedent for neighborhoods in other Chilean towns. There is still a need for improved coverage of Chile in English Wikipedia, but not the neighborhoods of small towns. Sietecolores (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bunch of them. As the previous editor noted, we do have a problem with covering non-global-north countries, but not to the extent of having articles on neighborhoods of small towns in Chile. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:22, 29 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia de Waal

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

Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent to satisfy WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is a frequent talking head and panel speaker, and has written or edited a number of reports and books so is the kind of person I'd expect to have a bio, but I'm not finding the significant independent coverage needed to write a bio. Fences&Windows 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombings in Mogadishu

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

This article loosely stitches together a few wikipedia articles about events in one of the most dangerous cities on earth. I can't see how the lead two sentences add to anyone's understanding of the violence in that city, making this basically a dab page with summaries. It's like having an article on shootings in LA Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure the point of this list or why it begins in 2008 —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it might seem like a glorified disambiguation page, but if that's what it is, it serves a purpose. You make it sound like it's a huge list with endless events, but it's not. If you think it should be trimmed out to a disambiguation page without summaries, that can be debated without any need for deletion. LjL (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this article [24] says "As well as attacking troops, the group (Al-Shabab) frequently carries out bombings and gun attacks on officials at bureaus, hotels or restaurants." This list is far from complete Stringing all bombings in the city together is WP:SYNTH. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SAL is not WP:SYNTH per se, no. LjL (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One issue with this is that it isn't chronologically limited, and different people have been blowing things up in Mogadishu for decades. If it is about bombins by one faction, say so. If it is a list, make it List of bombings in Mogadishu (2008-present) if that is what's intended. I have no issue with its retention, but its scope needs to be far better defined in the title and lead. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely improper synthesis as it stands, pulling together different bomb attacks in Mogadishu since 2008 without any indication that this is a coherent topic. I did consider if it could be turned into a cut-down list and extended back pre-2008, but I'm not sure why we would separate bombings from other attacks, we already have the comprehensive Timeline of Al-Shabaab related events (nearly all post-2008 bombings in Mogadishu are by Al-Shabaab), and navigating bombings in Mogadishu seems like something the category system could handle better. Fences&Windows 09:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather pointless. If the series had received coverage as a series, that would be different; but this is just a glorified category/DAB page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:49, 4 December 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan-Claire Green}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cole Hawkins}}<!--Relisted-->