Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 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 speedy keep. Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmusi Maimane

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

Delete. This article is bias and is clearly written to promote the personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 29 November 2015‎
Snow Keep - as the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa, he is clearly notable. Article is well-sourced. If it is indeed biased, then it should be rewritten to remove the bias, not deleted. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No need to pile on with the same arguments as above, but this is clearly notable through WP:GNG, first and foremost, and WP:POLITICIAN second. I'd recommend an admin close this "debate" as soon as possible. HOT WUK (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been deleting some content and editing the page with reliable sources to help make it more objective - not just good news. It is work-in-progress. He is a new leader of the party and remains to be seen how he will do overall. (anonymous)
WP:SNOW keep – Not only is he blatantly notable as the opposition leader of the world's 24th-most populous country, but having skimmed the article, I also see no obvious signs of bias. Graham (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously passed notability as MP. --Soman (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep per everyone (except the nom, who deserves a WP:Trout for this ridiculous nomination). The article is quite obviously not biased in favour of the subject, there is quite a lot of content about criticism of him - some of which seems rather trivial and gratuitous, IMHO. In any case article bias is not fixed by deletion when the subject is so blatantly notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:21, 5 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 speedy keep. Even though a week has passed I'm listing this as SK because the nomination is entirely unfounded in policy (in fact, it fell out of the WP:ATA tree and hit a couple of branches on the way down), and this nominator has a sytemic issue with making nominations that are not soundly policy-based, as well as giving the distinct impression of having been created solely to make said attempts at deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tshegofatso Seakgoe

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

Delete. Sources are poor and article is not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 29 November 2015‎

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. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. (And this is the third time I've been able to cut-and-paste this rationale for nominations by the same nominator, too.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonang Matheba

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

Delete The article is poorly sourced. A lot of information on it was unsourced claims clearly written by a fan and after deleting it they constantly brought it back. This article was clearly created by a publicity company to increase web presence of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with the sourcing, The Sowetan is a mainstream nationally distributed newspaper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - literally thousands of hits on News, these are the first 3 on the first page: this, this (although light on depth), and this. Plus this, this and this. I always attempt to AGF, but 10 seconds of WP:BEFORE would have shown this person as notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 5 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. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boity Thulo

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

Delete. The source used, Incwajana.com is unreliable and unknown. It's authority is not recognized therefore this article should be deleted. It is created for web presence and does not show importance. Wikipedia is not meant to promote celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I agree with the assessment of the current source, there is quite a bit out there on this actress. I also think this is a case of why is she notable, but she does at least pass WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG, as shown by articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's just on the first two pages at News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 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. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Thusi

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

Delete. The source used, Incwajana.com is unreliable and unknown. It's authority is not recognized therefore this article should be deleted. It is created for web presence and does not show importance. Wikipedia is not meant to promote celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the current article's source is not reliable, the subject does pass WP:GNG. Plenty of available citations such as this, this, this, this, this, this and this. And that's only on the first two pages at News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 5 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 speedy deleted CSD A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

اسبرطة

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

Page written in a foreign language Pahazzard (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete useful articles can be translated, this one is nonsense. Seems like it may be some facebook group.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No useful encyclopedic content worth saving here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per it possibly coined by creator or promoting the Facebook group. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 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 Merge somewhere. Where to may need further discussion, but I suspect it's OK if somebody just goes ahead with any one of the various variants proposed. Sandstein 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Lake State Recreation Site

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

I'm not sure we should have an article on every SRS/SRA in Alaska, and in fact I mean to propose de-linking a great many of the redlinks at the List of Alaska state parks page. There are dozens of these, and many of them are not notable. I've been to this place, it's basically a lakefront parking lot for RVs. The lake, which is not the property of the park system, is obviously the reason this exists but this is just a tiny campground and a boat launch. If it was privately owned there would be no question it was not notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Not that I mind that much, but could you explain why you think this belongs on that delsort list? I am not aware of any notable environmental issues involving this tiny park. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SILENCE, I have removed it from that list as there is no apparent reason for listing there and the user who added it has not replied despite being otherwise active. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect, but to where? – There are several likely targets:
- The lake itself – This recreation area abuts another recreation area operated by the U.S. Air Force for military affiliates. Also, along the spot where the Richardson Highway bends around the lake, is a townsite platted by the BLM or predecessor entity. This is enough to suggest that an article on the lake would help us to achieve our gazetteer function, though not by much. As far as military recreation facilities in Alaska go, Birch Lake is nowhere near as prominent as the Eielson or Wainwright ski hills, or for that matter, Seward Resort, none of which we really cover. The townsite has never had more than a small handful of houses. Which leads us to the next alternative...
- The Harding-Birch Lakes, Alaska CDP – Between the namesake lakes, Lost Lake and the area along the Salcha River upstream of easy road access, there is absolutely something notable to be said about this area as a recreational destination. However, the substantial history of Harding Lake among the well-to-do citizens of Fairbanks (or prior Native history when it was known as Salchaket Lake) notwithstanding, the uninitiated and those who contend that CDPs are strictly arbitrary inventions of the Census Bureau are more likely to view this area as a part of Salcha than as a separate community. This should be evident by the fact that "It is part of the 'Fairbanks, Alaska Metropolitan Statistical Area'" garners greater mention in the article than the titular lakes.
- The state parks article – I'll address any suggestions for improvements to that article in that discussion. This should be an obvious potential target and not require further elaboration. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article on the lake, I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect and a small section on this there, as it s obviously the reason this SRS exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess on why the SRS exists is that the feds held title to lands around the lake, and a certain portion of that was ceded to the state to satisfy statehood act obligations, or more specifically that the SRS was originally part of the much larger military facility next door and the land was turned over to the state after they deemed it surplus to their needs. I just acquired a copy of Alaska's Parklands — The Complete Guide by Nancy Lange Simmerman, published by The Mountaineers in 1983. I haven't found any mention of this particular facility in the book, and don't specifically remember it from any number of long-ago visits to the military facility, so it's also probably too new to have any history worth mentioning. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is immediately adjacent to it on the same access road, so that makes sense. We found that out because we were looking for a place to camp, and couldn't believe we'd really seen the whole place so we tried going further up the road but right away ran into gates and so on for the military rec facility. We moved on to Harding Lake, which has a much larger, nicer campground and boat launch.. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 5 December 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} 11:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new article Lakes of Fairbanks North Star Borough. There are a bunch of Birch Lakes in Alaska. This one and Harding Lake are in the Tanana River basin, however neither is particularly interesting. There's a map and fisheries record, but there's a lot of stocked waters in the Fairbanks area alone, so it's not clear that an individual article is really warranted. There is enough information, however, to make one overarching article with linkages as appropriate to Tanana Valley, Tanana Valley, Eielson Air Force Base, Tanana Valley State Forest etc.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 15:43, 12 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 merge to Seminar. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senior seminar

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

This is an entirely obvious definition of a generic term. This is not an encyclopedic subject, and it's not an encyclopedia article. The citations are either WP:EL posed as fake citations or just general coursework. The rest is WP:NOTDIR. The content was abandoned, as there is no encyclopedic premise or possibility for expansion. — Smuckola (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I previously nominated this article for deletion, and I still think it ought to be deleted. Yes, the word seminar is often used with the word senior preceding it as a qualifier, however it does nto follow that this is a notable topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into seminar or some other related article, I think the information is suitable for the encyclopedia, but not as a standalone article. Also it's not really WP:NOTDIR because knowing where such courses are offered is relevant information.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete or Merge into seminar for reasons indicated previously. No references. Generic (and non-encyclopedic) discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is too broken to function in a notification template, so I don't know if you'll see this. The prose is written in a vague yet globally subjective way, so it is entirely unencyclopedic. As such, there's nothing to merge unless you call the salvaging of a sentence fragment or two for some reason a "merge". There's just no meaningful content here, as the reader would need to already know everything about the subject in order to decipher it. It should have never been created. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect in any case as there's nothing outstanding to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 15 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnd Bernaerts

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

Reason Ice Czar (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC) General notability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline Original research https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he is a prolific writer, his work is rarely cited, according to Google Scholar. I have been unable to find significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources. As always, I am willing to reconsider if good sources come to light. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as pointed out by Cullen328, the author is prolific, but that does not translate into notability. His most heavily cited work only has 31 cites, the rest are in single digits. Other searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 6 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. joe decker ^talk 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go Dda Gareth

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. One review by the BBC, multiple reviews required to establish notability. Does not appear to satisfy any other criteria of WP:NBOOK. The fact that it may be kept in school libraries, a claim that is not sourced, does not establish notability anyway. Safiel (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The review referenced at the site mentioned in the second AfD appears to be a review in conjunction with the sale of the book, which would not count towards notability. Safiel (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally WP:PRODed this because, "Could not establish notability. Could not find additional references. Tagged for notability since 2008. Unable to deorphan." ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. Nothing doing. I read the previous afds which ended no consensus for the obvious problems of translation and RS. It isn't the job of WP to guess at notability - there is none in the article itself. Szzuk (talk) 17:43, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Arthur Winter

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

The subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This looks like a classic case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, as he received the Distinguished Conduct Medal which falls under the "well-known and significant" award category. MB298 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO, but him and his father could be potentially merged into the same article, if there is not much more to say about them. I know about WP:NOTINHERITED, but his father might have just gotten the awards, while his son did work in some organizations too making the son more important of the two. This may justify a merge. This article also needs some editing for the tone in my opinion. Ceosad (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (Struck !vote from nominator as a dup of an existing call to delete) doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER by rank or awards, (nearly 30,000 people were awarded the DCM, are they all going to have articles?) and per WP:GNG - Winter doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Nearly all are genealogical sources or primary records. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only significant claim is "father and son won DCM" which is not substantiated. Hamish59 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One second-level award (as the DCM is) is not generally considered sufficient to meet notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changing my previous vote since it's been pointed out that he had an obit in a major national newspaper and this is usually considered sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the basic notability criteria because his obituary appeared in multiple independent reliable publications: The Daily Telegraph ([1]) and Aldershot News (a Trinity Mirror pubication) ([2]). The military awards are additional indications of notability and although just short of 30,000 DCM medals were awarded (as noted above), the Telegraph article describes his as "unusual". RichardOSmith (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in RS so fails the WP:GNG (a few genealogical sources and primary records, that seems to be it). The inclusion of unreferenced claims about the Winters being the only father and son recipients of the DCM looks like OR to me. Even if true, and a ref could be found for this claim, it would only justify mention in the DCM page, not dedicated articles for these individuals. Anotherclown (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "only British father and son to win the DCM" is the only plausible hook for a keep here. How important is the distinction and how well is that fact documented? I leave that to the Military peeps. To me as a passerby this looks like a run of the mill NOTMEMORIAL situation... Carrite (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:24, 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. PeRshGo you may request to restore this to the draft space at WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 05:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Gendelman

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

Appears to be autobiography oradvertisement, low notability. JamesG5 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not an autobiography, as I'm not him, nor is it an advertisement. A little WP:AGF couldn't hurt though. As for notability the only folks I've worked on in the BLP space have been actors so I'm not going to pretend I'm 100% sure what the threshold for business people are. But he's an active guy in the area, and he writes / gets asked his opinion on business matters a lot, most specifically on the subject of Ukraine. PeRshGo (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As several of the sources were his own articles it looked like a self promotion piece, my apologies on that point.JamesG5 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just threw those two in on the end as writing examples, if you think it's better with out them they can go. PeRshGo (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That goes back to notability, then, as it leaves a single credible source (NBC) and a PR site. A google search shows very little about him that's not tied to his company. I note also that you created a page for the company Company_Folders as your first action on Wikipedia. I hate to strain WP:AGF but this does seem like promotion.JamesG5 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly a decade. That was not my first action on Wikipedia. In addition that would leave two credible sources, NBC, and DBusiness, in addition to the marketing company site which while questionable by merit of being a marketing company, really isn't writing him a promo article at all. But that being said if you think it isn't worthwhile it can be pulled and replaced with another article. That one just seemed to be a more interesting one. PeRshGo (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies again, for some reason your contribs list is showing your first as being making a page for that company. The DBusiness link wasn't there when I made that comment, just the Promodo link which is what I was referring to. Just still not sure why the owner of a local small business that makes office supplies is notable.JamesG5 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        To me I figured that as a writer alone or as a business owner alone he probably wouldn't meet the notability threshold but together he might. Truth is, this was a first shot to see if I could get some of the more active business guys around the Detroit area Wikipedia pages. Seems like this region is woefully under represented, and I thought, wow this guy writes a lot and his company has a distinction within that specific market (they make a lot of the print collateral for the big 3 and some other major companies) maybe he'd make the cut. Probably if I wouldn't have included those articles written by him at the end he would have. But AfDs tend to favor the deletionists and the BLP realm is a pain to start with. PeRshGo (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess if I want to see this thing through to the end, and given I spent the better part of the evening working on this I might as well, my argument has to be that if a bunch of publications see him as notable enough to interview, does that not make him notable enough for our purposes? PeRshGo (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, last thought I'll add in that regard is that on WP:Notability it talks about standalone pages. Assuming this guy and his company are notable enough to be on Wikipedia I can't imagine why they would have separate pages. At the very least I'd argue they should be merged with either a bio on him as part of the company page or a blurb on the company as part of his page. My opinion, let's see what others think.JamesG5 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll also throw out there that clicking the links above it seems he's cited in a few books as well. Not a ton but for his field it's pretty good PeRshGo (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as he's simply not independently notable. Notifying Wikimandia who may have some Ukrainian insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. classic promotionalism. Beyond the bio background, it's a story of how he came to found the company. Unfortunately, nothing about the company is notable, and neither is he. I've nominated the company page for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company Folders. WP is not the place for press ampaigns. DGG - 18:26, 16 September 2015
Comment It seems the deletes are having this one, even if some of them are erroneously assuming bad faith. That being said I'd still like to work on covering some of the Metro Detroit business guys on Wikipedia, so before this gets closed out, if someone could direct me to any good information on what the notability threshold is on business people, either here or on my talk page I'd appreciate it. Cheers. PeRshGo (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeRshGo If needed, this can be drafted and userfied to your userspace until it is better and as for the notability, see biographies notability. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:30, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Necio

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

poorly sourced promo The Banner talk 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure that it's promo, but the individual still does not meet notability standards. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is sourced with unfamiliar-to-westerners news sources. The first and third ref establish notability and the second ref is a dead link. Certainly not the best article ever written, but there is no reason for its deletion. Bfpage |leave a message 03:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient news coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 12 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. Sandstein 12:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Bringman

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

WP:BLP of a political strategist. Being the communications director of a presidential campaign can get a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing is really solid, but is not a claim of notability that gives a person an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — but only two sources have been cited here, and one of them is BuzzFeed (not a reliable source). Which means that the article is really sitting on just one WP:GNG-eligible source, but one good source isn't enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they don't pass an "automatic inclusion" criterion. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if it can be written and sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I literally have dozens of sources I can add that I'll be working on in the next week. It would be nice if the article wasn't nominated for deletion a few hours after I create it... I'll be working more on this article and others in the next week in between work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every article has to be immediately in a keepable state the moment it hits articlespace at all. If you need time to work on an article that doesn't already have enough quality sources in it right off the top to get the subject over WP:GNG right away, then the proper approach is to work on the article in draftspace or your own user sandbox, and then move it into articlespace only when you're done — but no article is ever entitled to any special exemption from the same sourcing and notability standards that would apply to any other article regardless of whether it's existed for two years or just two hours. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you want to talk about the proper way to do things. If you are such an expert, then why did you not notify me as the deletion policy suggests you should do. Also the deletion policy you write says you should "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and says the minimum is a Google Books and Google News search which brings up no shortage of sources. There are also many more sources under Politico Pro, CQ Plus, and other proprietary sites behind a pay wall. Either way, this has been a great education in how quick to jump to drastic solutions without trying to work with authors editors here are. It would have been just as easy for you to add the sources as to try to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article, especially if it's a WP:BLP, has to contain enough reliable sourcing right off the bat to demonstrate that the topic meets one or more of our inclusion criteria. If that's been done, then you can certainly hand off any needed improvements as being the responsibility of the entire Wikipedia community rather than strictly your own — but at the outset, the onus is on you, as the person who wants the article to be included, to ensure that the minimum level of sourcing necessary is present in the article to make it keepable in the first place. If the article is in a deletable state as written, then it's not anybody else's responsibility to rescue it for you. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I read your reliable sources policy. I can't imagine why BuzzFeed News wouldn't be a reliable source given its editorial oversight, paid reporters (the author of the piece in question is now a member of Hillary's traveling press corps), and the fact that it issues corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved allegations of frequent copyright violation...preponderance of "listicle" and "clickbait" articles instead of substantive coverage of things that would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia...heavy reliance on paid promotional content...single least trusted media source in the entire mediasphere in a Pew Research poll last year, below even Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart...name that's quite literally synonymous with the entire debate about everything that's wrong with contemporary journalism...want I should keep going? Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably learn how to read. This whole page has a list of instructions, which in addition to suggesting notification of the author of articles being suggested for deletion, states: "1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Congratulations on failing to do the minimum expected search, Mr. Expert! But thanks for your tendentious responses. Perhaps I failed to provide sufficient sources at the onset, but the onus is clearly on you to search for sources before nominating for deletion. That's according to literally the instructions to suggest something for deletion linked at the top of this page, you should've given it a read! And if you have issues with BuzzFeed News, that's your problem. BuzzFeed News meets the criteria set out in the policy you so happily point to. You clearly fail to differentiate between BuzzFeed News, the news section of the website which has editorial controls, fact checking, and other characteristics which, according to the policy you link to, make it a "reliable source" and the rest of the site which includes user generated content, listicles, promotional content, and other items. Dude, seriously, you should actually look into stuff before you write. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can quibble all you like with whether BuzzFeed, or some part of it, should be considered a WP:RS — but it isn't considered one. This has nothing to do with me, and is not my "problem", because I'm not the one who made that decision — Wikipedia has a review process by which sources which may be considered questionable can be reviewed for whether they meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria or not, which I'm not even a participant in, and it decided that BuzzFeed isn't acceptable. I'm not making up my own criteria to arbitrarily decide that it isn't acceptable to me — a consensus of Wikipedia contributors made that decision, and I didn't even contribute so much as one comma to those discussions. So you're free to disagree, but you most certainly do not get to hold that difference of opinion over my head. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, would you be able to provide a link to the discussion you're referencing? Graham (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see that as well. From my own searches at the RSN, there's some consensus that at least some of BuzzFeed's articles are reliable: [3]. I'd agree with the sentiment. Political/news reporting by BuzzFeed is highly reliable in my opinion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since when is BuzzFeed's politics reporting not a reliable source? Completely disagree. Some of the best known American political reporters work for BuzzFeed (you are perhaps confusing their viral content work with their political reporting). Anyways, there's plenty of coverage of Bringman in other sources as well (these are a selection, there's more when you searched): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. More than enough in my opinion to establish notability and meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be consensus that BuzzFeed articles can be reliable (so long as they aren't the run-of-the-mill clickbait type), and if that's the case, then this article passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. clpo13_(talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, I need to format my response like this -- something I did not know when Bearcat listed the article for deletion in my first week on the site -- so here it is. This discussion has turned into a proxy debate over BuzzFeed's ability to serve as a reliable source, even when the article is written by their news division by a well-known political reporter with editorial oversight, despite the fact that the story now has quite a few other sources (with more on the way). Bringman is notable and this article should be kept and improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 10:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Energy transfer

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

I wish to propose deletion of the article with title Energy transfer.

The article seems to have been transmogrified from an original article about ballistics. There were some imperfections in that original article, but they do not constitute a reason for what has happened to it. It has been transmogrified into a muddled unsourced article that vacillates between being about thermodynamic systems and physical systems, which are distinctly different topics. It has no sources, and, on the face of it, looks like an own-research meditation by someone who did not investigate potential reliable sources for it. Its content is a muddled or half-baked version of parts of other articles, such as, for example, Heat and Thermodynamic process. I think it does not deserve a place as such in Wikipedia. If someone with an interest in ballistics wished to rescue it as an article on ballistics, I would not oppose that.

At present it is mainly a playground for the occasional vandal. So I propose that it should be deleted.Chjoaygame (talk|TB|) 11:01 am, Today (UTC+(reposted on behalf of OP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay or Original Research. Unsourced since it s creation in 2005. At one time there was a Merge proposal that failed to create resonance. Talk on the article talk page tends to reveal a consensus that the article is probably scientifically inaccurate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't propose to rescue this article myself (at least not right now), and I have no wish to defend it in its current state, but it is most definitely a notable subject. There are many books and papers on the subject, and it is an especially hot topic in the field of microscale energy transfer, see for instance, the discussion of, the previously unsuspected, energy transfer by inductive resonance in Energy Transfer in Macromolecules. It is also a distinct topic from energy transformation (although obviously connected with it) and it is most definitely more than an article on ballistics as claimed by the nominator. SpinningSpark 10:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. I, the nominator, didn't claim it is now an article on ballistics; I claimed it is a transmogrification of an article that was originally on ballistics. The commenter Editor Spinningspark may well be right that an article is needed about microscale energy transfer, but there is no hint of that in the present article. That fits with my claim that the present article was not based on a fair investigation of sources. If Editor Spinningspark wishes to write an article along the lines that he suggests, I say more strength to his arm. But let's clear the decks for him by deleting the present half-baked effort.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one is so awful that it should be deleted. Energy transfer has a well-defined meaning in photophysics, but the article talks about everything else. Perhaps it could be redirected to Förster coupling, although that article is pretty awful, too. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current unsourced article is pure OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Energy transfer is an important topic in many areas of physics as well as in technology. Just because the current version of the article is not good does not mean the article should not exist. If Conservation of energy were in reasonable shape rather than its current hodgepodge of history and specific topics, I would suggest a redirect to that article. However there is no discussion of energy transfer in "Conservation of energy"! We have a reasonable article on Energy transformation which has no references at all, showing the current state of many physics articles. Many were written in the era when topics covered in textbooks were considered not to need references. So not sourced is not a reason to delete the article either. See WP:ARTN: ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the foregoing. That transfer of energy is considered "in many areas of physics" does not make it a topic in its own right. Those areas of physics are diverse and have different approaches. The diversity of those areas of physics is a reason that the phrase "energy transfer" is not a unified topic. It is artificial to tie the various approaches together in a single article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to provide an article for every phrase that one may encounter.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Energy itself is considered in many areas of physics, and has an article, as does force, and momentum. Those articles have sections on the various approaches without seeming to be artificially tied together. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing response misses the point. Energy is a primary concept that unifies otherwise diverse areas of physics. 'Energy transfer' is a phrase that is derived from it, and different in the diverse areas. It is artificial to try to make it a topic of its own. The apparently unconscious conceptual mixture of the article's present version testifies to this. The poor quality and lack of constructive maintenance of the present article also testify. The reactively and newly added 'further reading' item is a bureaucratic concoction, not a useful addition to an encyclopedia topic. The article should be deleted unless some editors appear who are willing and able to fix it, and maintain it. I think it is probably beyond fixing, because it is not a natural topic. To allow for editors who may appear in future and wish somehow to create a new article with same title but better reason for existence, let's clear a space for them to start from.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstating your case. If energy transfer is such an artificial topic how come I can find a book with that title, and presumably entirely on that topic? Or this one Advances in Energy Transfer Processes? Admittedly, that last is concerned only with atomic and molecular processes, but nonetheless is treating the subject of energy transfers of all kinds as a unified whole. The bottom line as far as Wikipedia policy goes is that an article with this title could be written from reliable sources, thus an article with this title should exist. SpinningSpark 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right that I have overstated the case. I still think the present article should be rescued or deleted, not left as a little vandalism node, otherwise unmaintained. When some keen editors come along to write a decent article on the topic, they will then have a clean slate to start from.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basic thermodynamics , and, as noted above, is covered in various pages. It is covered already at the various places it belongs. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Thermodynamics is not the only area of physical science dealing with energy transfer. I learned more about energy transfer in courses in Classical Mechanics, Chemical Physics, and Stellar Structure than I did in either undergraduate or graduate Thermodynamics courses. In this era of STEM education the National Academy of Sciences published A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas in 2012. Of the four core ideas in the physical sciences, the third is listed as

Core Idea PS3. Energy.
How is energy transferred and conserved?
Interactions of objects can be explained and predicted using the concept of transfer of energy from one object or system of objects to another. The total energy within a defined system changes only by the transfer of energy into or out of the system.

It would be good to have a coherent Wikipedia article for this concept as teachers and students come looking for it. The outline given in the Framework mentioned above is where I plan to start. I don't think we need to erase a decade worth of editing history by deleting the article first. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

right, it is of course broader than thermodynamics, or at least is a part of thermodynamics that is directly relevant to many other topics. But we already have a reasonably good article on the general topic, and I should have thought of it at once: Energy. We can just redirect to it. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Editor StarryGrandma intends to write a well conceived article on the topic, I say more strength to her arm. She says she thinks we don't "need to erase a decade worth of editing history by deleting the article first". A look at the editing history will persuade editors that the word "worth" does not describe it well. The article started as an unreferenced but reasonable account of a topic in ballistics, not primarily physics-oriented. It was later taken over by an editor who was physics-oriented, but was not clear about the difference between physical systems in general and thermodynamic systems, still with no references, and with obliteration of the ballistics topic. Much of the editing has been vandalism and its undoing.

I think if Editor StarryGrandma should go ahead to write a new and well conceived article, we would be doing her, and other editors, and all readers, a great favor by clearing the old detritus from their path, by deleting the present messy incumbent. Left there, it would be a potentially misleading distraction, not a help.

It is not obvious to me that there is a substantial difference, beyond the name, between conservation of energy and energy transfer. They are in substance, it seems to me, the same. The quoted syllabus lists them as one core idea, not separately. As a distinct topic in its own right, I think it a formidably difficult task to conceive in general. I repeat, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to list the usages of a word.

As for the comment "it is of course broader than thermodynamics, or at least is a part of thermodynamics that is directly relevant to many other topics", I think energy transfer comes up in very many other diverse areas, far beyond the scope of thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then recreate as a redirect to Energy#Energy transfer. I find these arguments compelling. I've changed the energy transfer section heading in Energy to Energy transfer and removed the "main article" reference to the article Energy transfer. I will rewrite that section somewhat. (Convection, where mass moves, is an important means of energy transfer.) If at some time it grows beyond the size of an article section, it can become a subarticle. It's position in the Energy article should prevent random additions of topics. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This can be probably transformed into a disambig. page, something similar to Charge-transfer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 5 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 merge to 2008–09 A1 Grand Prix season. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Italy

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

Cancelled sports events that aren't notable for anything other than their cancellation, which is already adequately covered on 2008–09 A1 Grand Prix season. Fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2008-09 A1 Grand Prix season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Park (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deleting rather than merging, as I don't see these as plausible redirects. QueenCake (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - How could something that never existed gain notability on its own? Ceosad (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The event was cancelled for un-extraordinary reasons, therefore is non-notable. There is nothing to merge to the season article, and I don't see a plausible redirect here. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:39, 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. Sandstein 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard (record producer)

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

Non-notable person, Does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged since July 2011 as needing more references. Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and two web searches found some links but surely nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails GNG. Ceosad (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:COMPOSER; needs better and more references, which I can find extremely easily on Google when I looked so... Instead of deleting, you could always find these not-so-dificult to find citations. Edit: I added liner note citations to all of them. I don't see a need to cite the record sales of them for passing NALBUMS, you can just find that on the album pages. Since the complaints about this article are no longer existent, I propose the AfD end. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 02:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this about a person instead of his recordings? WP:NOTINHERITED I struggle in finding anything more than brief mentions about him. This WP:MUSICBIO guideline is more relevant: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Liner notes help, but they are not independent sources. Ceosad (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little further and there's actually WP:COMPOSER"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He has several notable compositions in that list.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he seems to be a notable person, and would undoubtedly be notable, but we cannot prove that he is notable. I am worried about depth of coverage that is certainly lacking in any sources I could find. Ceosad (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find more references, but you only have to meet a criterion, not all or multiple of them to be considered notable. I had that linking to the wrong page~ Fixed it. Plus, your NOTINHERITED link, doesn't apply because it isn't inherited. You can't inherit something from what you created. That is meant to say that just because a person/thing is notable, not all of their works/associated things are. If a person's works are notable, then that person is notable.WP:COMPOSER.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relisting., Let's give it one more try. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, if they meet any of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER, they may be notable; it doesn't mean they are notable. In this case the lack of significant in-depth coverage doesn't help them pass WP:GNG, and their songwriting credits aren't strong enough on their own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the almost complete lack of substantive coverage is a death knell here. The songwriting credits by themselves are insufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 15 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. With no debate in 14 days, there is not likely to be much if relisted again. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taktici

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

fails WP:NBAND Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily fulfills WP:NBAND in multiple points:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

1) "...subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..."

zivot.cas.sk
pluska.sk
many more in printed media and elsewhere

9) won 2005 Slávik Awards

10) recorded for movie Smoliari

12) a documentary by RTVS (official trailer available at YouTube)

Criteria for composers and lyricists:

1) Their song "10 dkg Tresky" was recorded by Elán (band)

--Hlucho (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The band is notable per Allmusic, Discogs as well local IFPI chart positions. The original editor should update the article with further references, though. MiewEN (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and have some familiar Slovak attention as this may have better archived sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This (http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20026952/elan-and-taktici-to-rock-the-castle.html) appears to be notable enough. Munci (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of Kiwi Country

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

I know is Unreferenced for 9 years, compilation album with no AllMusic entry and also i looked up on the web but i couldn't any significant notability on the album. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm happy to reconsider if anyone can find any references or evidence of notability, but currently the article has neither. - SimonP (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 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 merge to Protests against a hike in electricity rates (Armenia). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Armenian anti-government protests

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

Incoherent and appears to contradict itself. Personally, I could not understand a phrase in the article. Alexandru M. (talk) 18:45, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Protests against a hike in electricity rates (Armenia). 178.94.166.186 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - At least the parts that make any sense at all. Ceosad (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Şehime

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

Could find no sources that indicate this person existed. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She existed look here under Cemile Sultans descendant:

https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source: "This genealogical study is the first publication of our family association, HANEDAN..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and tag for sourcing. Her son, Sen Sahir Silan, wrote a memoir, I Do Not Regret, Vantage (2005). Moreover that striking house on the Bosporus exists, it is always called by her name. She's real. And notable (for her association with that landmark house - if nothing else). Just needs sourcing. User:NeilN try searching on google books (look at this:[11] ; bountiful sources available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I conflated her with her grandmother. I do admire that house, every time I go past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa Not my error at all. Somehow, the two separate AFDs, grandmother and grandaughter, are linked to this single discussion. When they are untangled, my comment is re: Cemile Sultan, an AFD that Nom may want to withdraw after reading it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I don't know what the editor is thinking, but their actions are annoying. I have removed the invalid AFD notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- She strike me as being completely NN, except that she was an Ottoman princess. The content of the article is merely a list of NN descendants. There may well be a place for such a list on a genealogical website, but it does not belong in WP: utterly non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches in Turkish yielded no results and the only existing source appears to be that archived genealogy. Also I'm not sure whether this was brought up or not, but a duplicate article, Şehime, was created after Princess Şehime's AfD nomination. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:59, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Events In City

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

No evidence of any notability. Supposed links to show awards is a dead link. Two others are YouTube videos and one is a simple own advert. Nothing here even close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Youtube link is actually a CNBC Link, plus there is a Hindu link, so that makes it two reliable sources. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article passed 2 of WP:GNG and also won two notably awards ..--Bello96 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The CNBC piece is an interview, and therefore, being a primary source, does not go to notability. The Hindu Business Line article is very good, but it raises an issue about the article's title, since the Hindu article never calls this company by the wiki article's title (same as the CNBC piece). Searches did not turn up enough other in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG, it certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the overwhelmingly promotional tone of the article makes it an excellent candidate for WP:TNT. If it is somehow kept, the title needs to be changed to the correct name as per the sources, which refer to allevents.in. It would also need to be stubified to the only one or two non-promotional lines in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soil Art Gallery

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

Zero coverage, let alone significant lasting coverage, in independent soruces. One or two passing mentions in alt weeklies about artists and shows (not about the gallery)[12][13]. Most significant coverage is a paragraph in The Stranger in 2004.[14]. Insufficient depth of independent sources to meet WP:ORG. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emília Araújo

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT. No reliable sources conform WP:RS as needed for s WP:BLP The Banner talk 07:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cut-and-paste moved from Emilia Araújo. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to close a discussion about that one - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Araújo - and use only this to keep things in one place, given it is de facto the same article. - Nabla (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the other one. The nomination is the same and the only vote there is already here too (by Gene93k) - Nabla (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Araújo. Fails GNG. References cited are low quality. Independent searches for sources got nothing reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neshaminy Creek Brewing Company

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

"First production brewery ' in particular suburban Philadelphia county, is not much of a distinction. The refs are either the most local of suburban papers, or their own website. the contents of the article isacatalog listing of products. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although News, Books, browser found some links, there's nothing convincingly better for a seemingly locally known brewery. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exile (To-Mera album)

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources, as the one reference is from progarchives.com, which invites readers to "Edit this entry". No assertion of notablility. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NALBUMS. OnoMak (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we merge it to To-Mera? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist page (To-Mera). clpo13_(talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no redirect is needed, as the album already exists on the Exile dab page (although that link would have to be redirected to the artist's page). Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel5969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AddMore der Zweite (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 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. Despite some relatively strong arguments about WP:MERGE, if there are no notability concerns here then the fundamental consensus that the subject is in fact notable. A merge discussion can be held on the talk page through the merge process if the article is deemed a stub which is borderline per definitions at WP:STUB. Mkdw ^talk 05:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Painter (supercentenarian)

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

There's no indication that there is enough significant coverage of reliable sources for a separate article on Mr. Painter. Of the three sources here, I added the GRG table M that reiterates his birth, death, age and ranking as world's oldest man. The City Paper is an obituary showing essentially WP:ROUTINE local coverage of his death (even though it had a statement from the Governor). The other source is his local congressman congratulating him on his 112 birthday which given the way the Congress Record is full of these kinds of things is almost WP:ROUTINE coverage as well. Both notably were based on his significance as the oldest Tennessee which was later learned to be incorrect for what that means. I think per WP:NOPAGE we should redirect the page to List of the verified oldest men and the actual details about here could be made into a mini-biography there (List of supercentenarians from the United States has nineteen at the moment). Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the French Legion of Honor make him notable? EEng (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, not every one listed at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name has an article so I'd say it wouldn't make him automatically notable. We're back to the WP:GNG analysis then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly doesn't make him inherently notable. It's a very common award, even to foreigners. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. EEng (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A substantial article that makes clear claims of notability based on extreme age and recognition for his military service. The scope and breadth of the article and the inclusion of appropriate reliable and verifiable sources satisfy our notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And so the never ending deletion spree continues. This man was not recognised as the oldest living man until after his death, so naturally there isn't as much coverage for him as we typically see for other former world's oldest men, but does that make the achievement any less significant? No. I've added some more sources in to the article although it might need a clean up. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Extremely Weak keep/leaning merge Being one of five people in a state of 6 million or so to have been awarded France's highest honour would certainly merit consideration of an article. A Keep rationale would have a stronger case if it was made cleared as to why Mr Painter was awarded the honour. I'm not looking for feats like Charles Upham, but there surely should be something. Excepting his war service, the article actually weakens his claim for a standalone article as he came from a family of long lived individuals. Blackmane (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be common sense that the oldest man in the world at any one time is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question on the table is notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make any sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. What I meant to say is "The question on the table isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE." EEng (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be enough on the page for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically in WP:NOPAGE are you citing, it is like telling people the answer is in the bible, all your questions will be answered there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't compare NOPAGE to the bible, either in length or inscrutability. Anyway, the relevant parts of NOPAGE are

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic... Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page... Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

EEng (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can "a notable topic ... be covered better" by reducing his biography to 4 data points in a table? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says above: "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". EEng (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge keep on List of the verified oldest men and add a mini bio to that page. Not enough for a stand-alone article but it fits the format of the list page for inclusion of a minibio. Then create a redirect with the subject's name as a search term. David in DC (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oldest man. (Though no inline citation for the same.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. There's not enough here for a standalone article, even if GNG were met. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solid referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since he was posthumously verified as having been the WOM, there is reason as to why this man didn't escape local media attention. He also received France's highest honour, which further strengthens the reason as to why he should have his own article here on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Hardly. There are five ranks of the order. Apparently he's in the rank that has 75,000 other recipients. Anyway, it's not about what the subject "should have", it's about the best way to present whatever's worth presenting about him (WP:NOPAGE). EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no question of notability, but only whether to merge or keep. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States and create a redirect as a plausible search term - Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB, we should try to avoid creating articles which will never grow beyond stubs. As to the question of whether the Légion d'honneur confers automatic notability, WP:SOLDIER has a footnote that in the event of the nation's highest valor decoration having multiple grades or classes, only the highest military grade qualifies. Should Mr. Painter be added to any list of Légion d'honneur recipients, he should be wikilinked to his section in List of supercentenarians from the United States. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World's oldest man deserves a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic" i.e. it's not about what the subject "deserves", it's about what best serves the reader's understanding. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentary. To clarify further, the subject deserves a stand-alone article, so the reader's understanding can be better served. The detail can be listed in the subject's article and be wikilinked from the broader topic. In this way, the reader does not have to read about this individual unless they really want to. The "broader topic" would be cluttered up by including all this detail there. Jacona (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on existing coverage which should satisfy general guidelines for determining notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a merge question, why are we here. Merges are handled on the talk page, this is Articles for Deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lost to history is that fact that AfD was originally "Articles for Discussion" -- it gradually came to be called Deletion because that's 98% of the traffic here. I thought about making these proposals on the article talk pages, as you suggest, but several other editors felt that the increased visibility/transparency of AfD might be preferable, given the long sorry history of longevity topics. But you're the second or third editor to make the same suggestion recently, so I'm reconsidering. Thanks. EEng (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this lost to history? It has always been my understanding that this forum was initially referred to as Votes for Deletion and was later renamed to Articles for Deletion. I was not aware this was ever referred to as Articles for Discussion. The option to merge is an editorial decision which can be dealt with on the respective talk page. As to your question of relevancy, I am afraid we disagree. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, if I could remember where it's lost to history, then it wouldn't be lost to history, would it? Maybe I'm thinking of TfD, which really is "Templates for discussion". EEng (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I believe you are simply mistaken. A name change of that magnitude would not be lost to history, and I don't see how it would be possible given the nature of how Wikipedia operates. A cursory search shows that a renaming was proposed in ~2009 but consensus was not reached. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I had it backwards. Great detective work on your part, though I'm not sure it matters. EEng (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'NOPAGE is a a pretty strong argument here. The info presented here is much better presented in context in other articles. So Merge and include a short bio on the list article. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 9 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. If anyone wants to contest this deletion please post on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous gaze

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

Unreferenced. Very stubby, has about 2 bits of information, and should quite easily be worked into the Trompe-l'œil article (which I would've done but as an outsider I don't feel i can do this appropriately). Don't know what notability criteria this would be assessed against, but would've thought if it was a sufficiently important aspect of art, there'd be lots written about it. Rayman60 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 29 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} 10:57, 6 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 speedy delete as a hoax by a serial sockpuppeteer. Max Semenik (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriya Gebru (singer)

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

Poorly sourced. At least some other pages on this person have been speedily deleted. Contains unverified research (such as the Halloween Returns parts) which appears inaccurate. Largely paraphrased from http://www.seriyaxo.com/#!bio/c1o5 JamesG5 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that all 3 of the accounts saying "Keep" are brand new here on Wikipedia and the only thing 2 of the 3 have done involves the page in question. Would like to see some opinions by others. JamesG5 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I believe some parts may need to be rewritten, but I don't believe it deserves deletion. At most, tags should be placed on the page. Knightsofthetiger (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be improved, but the person does basically meet standards for notability having released a somewhat notable album on a major label. As far as the "Halloween Returns" issue, not much information has been revealed about the film, if this person has stated that they will appear in the film, I see no reason why it shouldn't be credible. Ladygagahouse (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly so, I put this up for discussion rather than the speedy deletes that were done for previous pages on this individual because I thought it merited review, but please don't remove the template until there's some consensus. JamesG5 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article should be cleaned up, but individual meets WP:NM with the Bad Boy Records album, since it was an imprint of Warner Music Group at the time. Additionally, according to the individual's site, her second major release is set to be released on November 30th through Bad Boy, which is now an imprint of Sony Music Entertainment. Logicequalslogical (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically the "record label notability" would be only the lifeline saving this as I simply found no minimally acceptable coverage to suggest a better article. I wish I could say keep but there's simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Henzel

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

Delete: Czech-born Swedish actor of dubious notability. Quis separabit? 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Quis separabit? 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourced article, per notable roles in several films and series. He is also an established comedian. I do not see the dubious notability. Per WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain perhaps as I notice this may be keepable and the best my searches found was only one Variety review at Books but I also weigh deleting because there's simply hardly much and it shows at his IMDb. Certainly this will need familiar Swedish attention so perhaps Josve05a and Chiswick Chap can help here? SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I did look at it, and thought it was marginal both in interest and notability. However, since you ask, there are a couple of brief passing mentions in Norran, a regional newspaper. There's another brief mention in Eskilstuna Kurir, a local paper. Even briefer in VLT. None of these are substantial enough to confer notability, and most of the publications are frankly minor. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. The sources in the article don't add up to much either (Sveriges Radio only mention him in a list of "they also took part"), though the TV appearance probably counts towards notability. It isn't enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Has appeared in many famous Swedish films and TV series. J 1982 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J 1982: As an extra or what? Is that your opinion, or can you prove it with reliable sources? If he's famous he ought to be appearing in newspapers and so on, which he isn't. Can you provide references for major roles he has played? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user J 1982 is right. AfD is not a clean-up service or a tool for making a article better. It is purely for establishing notability or not. Clearly this actor has had important roles. Improvements and expansions can be done. But not by request upon AfD. Period. This article covers WP:GNG. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ: We aren't asking for cleanup, but for deletion on grounds of failing notability, so blustering rhetoric "(. Period. ... Period.)" is way off-beam. If you believe the subject meets the GNG then all you have to do is to provide sources. I had a serious look in the usual places and couldn't find them; if you know of some, now is the time to produce them and I'll happily change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the deletion !votes then referring to the articles quality instead of notability?. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd been pretty clear on the matter, but am happy to state plainly that as it stands I have been unable to find proof of notability, and nor it seems has anyone else. I listed what I could find above, and it's not nearly enough. If you can find more, I'll be listening. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this fellow seems to have ample film credits and other work. I see potential for 10x or more expansion to this article if the right fan/editor or Swedish film expert contributes to the article. --♥Golf (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have appeared almost exclusively in minor roles. But if not appearing in newspapers or magazines anywhere in Scandinavia or elsewhere in the world confers notability nowadays, I'm happy to go along with the consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly have to comment snarky at everyone. It becomes obnoxious and makes no difference to the end result in either way.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is versatile actor consistently active for many years (1979 to present). Also a stand up comic with a number of gigs. werldwayd (talk) 21:33, 13 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} 10:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyles vs Zombies

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG with no independent, reliable, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I don't see any reviews or in-depth info even from unreliable/unchecked sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable game and it fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:38, 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.

Kurdish terrorism

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

A different article was previously deleted. This monograph by an apparently nationalist WP:SPA has much more of the things that made the earlier article unacceptable. More bias, more personal opinion, more spite. It is a truly horrible article. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's mostly just a timeline of factual attacks, including those by Turkish security forces against civilians.

For example, this line: "March 29, 2006: Abdullah Duran, a 9 year old boy, was shot dead by security forces during the clashes in Diyarbakır."

And this line: "March 30, 2006: According to the EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence, Enez Atak, a 6 year old boy, was injured by a plastic bullet and later died in hospital, Diyarbakır.[56] Fatih Tekin, a 3 year old boy, was shot and killed by Turkish Security forces during a police raid on a civilian house in Batman during a series of violent clashes in the Kurdish regions of Turkey."

Yes, the attacks are "horrible", but this should not be an excuse to delete the article. The personal attacks make no sense either. Editing an article on Kurdish nationalism does not make one a nationalist. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Lrednuas Senoroc is the creator of this article and has few or no other contributions to Wikipedia outside of this topic.[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the deletion nomination was triggered by the article title. While the PKK group is a designated terrorist organisation, the term "terrorist" is rather emotive, and thus some may express POV concerns. This can easily be solved by changing the article title, or by merging the article, perhaps to Timeline of the Turkey–PKK conflict.

Although there is the precedent of Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Israeli terrorism, so the article title may be justified. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should at the very least merge this into Timeline of the Turkey–PKK conflict as currently, this is a POV fork. Ping Andrewa, Stifle, Crotalus horridus, who participated in the previous discussion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this has been copied from Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict, which was kept and renamed in 2006, and deleted in 2008. Peter James (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted at a time when Timeline articles were highly unusual on wikipedia and on the argument that the substantive content of this article is already duplicated in other wikipedia articles - but in 2015 the duplication of the content cannot be found on wikipedia. Which means that the rationale for deletion is not valid anymore. The content is not identical to the Timeline of the Turkey–PKK conflict article, although it could be merged into it, since both are timeline articles. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 00:21, 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 move to Draft space. Dkendr is correct, this discussion has gone on long enough, I don't see another relist as giving us much more. The consensus is that at this time, the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, however there is potential. So move to draft space it is. I suggest using the Articles for Creation process to get assistance in improvement there. The page can now be found at Draft:Melinda Hill. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hill

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

The subject is short of Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:ENTERTAINER) and essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet. Dkendr (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC), updated Dkendr (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've completed this nomination and added the rationale, based on Dkendr's edit summary[15]. They are, of course, invited to expand on their rationale. Other options (protection?) might be useful if a sockfarm is indeed at work. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this wikipedia page and it should not be deleted. All info is cited and referenced correctly. (Example: http://tangledwebwewatch.com/2013/07/17/stephs-la-weekly-feature-series-melinda-hills-romantic-encounters/) Content has been removed wherein it is libelous and untrue vandalism. It is within the acceptable guidelines and standards of wikipedia to remove such content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion This statement is incorrect vandalism: "Hill's America's Got Talent appearance was notable for her complete failure. She bombed so thoroughly that the judges were not even motivated to activate their buzzers to end her set early.[11]" Statement is not factual and is meant to cyber-bully a living person with inaccurate and undocumented slander. No judge on America's Got Talent has ever been "unmotivated to activate a buzzer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the complete failure line - this is a BLP, after all. As for the rest? Look, you and Dkendr have gone back and forth on this article for more than a week now, getting nowhere - and all while coming dangerously close to an edit war. Let's see if the AFD gets more eyes on the article, and perhaps we can get some of these problems sorted one way or the other. The first step should really have been the talk page, but this works as well. So, @Dkendr:, how's about you and this IP editor stop reverting the article and see what other editors think? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{I also marked your comment as a keep, since you say the article should be kept. This is for the benefit of the closing admin. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Ultraexactzz: Wikipedia is about community consensus so whatever that may be I will of course abide. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz: I will agree to that and thank you very much for your help and suggestion this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (iVote is nomination -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) : Subject fails the notability test, page patrolled by a sock puppet. I do want to add that I put a "delete for notability" tag on the page... and it was deleted with no supporting edits... Dkendr (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep : By most metrics I question the "notability" of someone with such low-level (online videos, podcasts, uncredited appearances, etc.) show biz accomplishments, and yet the subject appears to meet wikipedia's much more lax notability standards by providing references that indicate some degree of independent press coverage, even though that press (online interviews and free "alternative" weekly entertainment guides) strikes me as borderline non-trivial. Certainly wikipedia has allowed notability status for pages that have provided less back up, so why should this page be any different? Let it stay ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

weak delete: Technically it fail entertainer notability criteria. At first glance does seem to have a diverse and active career, however in reality they all look like bit parts/extra roles. If result is keep, page has COI and neutrality issues that need addressing (ideally keeping overly enthusiastic editors away from making wholesale changes to whatever remains of the article). Rayman60 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an Adventure Time fan I enjoy reading about the career trajectories of the cast. I only wish this page had more information about Melinda's work on Adventure Time and could clear up the certain conspiracy theories about her character Doctor Princess, one of my all time favorite characters.CelebFan (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — CelebFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I call sock puppet on this user. Account created Nov. 26, 2015, with no other edits in its portfolio. CelebFan of course is permitted to create a page about AdventureTime, but should be reminded that Wikipedia is not the place for fan fiction. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How is this even up for discussion? The statement above is completely false: "essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet." { Melinda Hill has never appeared on any game shows, according to google. I am a fan of her stand up comedy and her appearances on several network and cable TV shows. She also hosted a TV series called Comedy.TV which is still airing over the world and we watch it frequently here in Chicago.EdwardEditHands (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — EdwardEditHands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Melinda Hill was a contestant on America's Got Talent, which is a game show. I call sock puppet on this one too; the account was created on Nov. 28, 2015, same date as this posting, with no other edits in its portfolio. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable performer, talented, she appeared on the Craig Ferguson show. My unofficial test of pageviews is averaging about 30/40 per day, sometimes spiking, here, and while of course it is unofficial, for me it usually is an indication of notability. Some coverage here, but sources in article now, such as this ind-depth one, and this one suggest she meets the WP:GNG although admittedly there is a much extra junk in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Talented" is subjective. The "Secretariat" character was on Ferguson more often, should it have a page? If she is notable for hosting a show then the show might qualify and this article could be included in it. Dkendr (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The "Secretariat" character from Ferguson does in fact have its own paragraph in the main Craig Ferguson show article. Dkendr (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as a standalone biography article since the topic Melinda Hill has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (see nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability (people)). That is, there are not enough reliable secondary sources, independent of the topic, to written an account of Melinda Hill's life. While the article includes basic facts regarding her career, the Wikipedia article does not include life events or even portray her experience of these life events since none of the Wikipedia reliable secondary sources cover such information. As such, the topic cannot be maintained as a biography and should be deleted. The information would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on the game show -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once blogs are excluded, there is almost no coverage of this person. Appearance on a single game show is definitely below the (very low) GNG threshold, and the existence of blogs discussing that same game show does not confer notability. If this person receives more coverage then reliable sources will emerge; for now it is at best WP:TOOSOON. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps draft and userfy so delete for now as there may be enough coverage for even a marginally acceptable article but there could be better coverage and I'm seeing that so far so drafting and userfy may beneficial for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apart from the original editor and what could easily be a bit of sockpuppetry, there don't seem to be any reasons to keep this article. Userfying and waiting for new sources is however not unreasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be the fairest approach to retaining the content for future revival if warranted and maintaining notability policy. Dkendr (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. There are a lot of trivial mentions, local news and event listings used as sources here. Of note: if you go to the articles on the works she's done where she was not cast as "herself", almost none have her name in the article. If anything (and this is a stretch) she may be encyclopedic for her two shows, but there's little of encyclopedic value here beyond that. That's not to say she's not talented, I'm sure she is, but Wikipedia is not IMDb. I would suggest redirecting to one of the articles but I can't determine which, so search results would be better. No prejudice against moving to draft space if someone wants to work on it, but frankly I don't think there's any merit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied Page

I have userfied this page to preserve its content in case of a notability change or the content becomes usable in a wider-scoped article. This does not constitute "cyber bullying" in any way. Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkendr: you should not have done that, and you did it improperly. I have asked at WP:ANI to have this move reverted. Please at least wait for this discussion to close before you act on how you interpret the result, and then please ask for help if the page needs to be moved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back. Dkendr, please do not move the page in that manner. The closing Admin will move the page to userspace if appropriate.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my enthusiasm but I'm wondering how long the debate will be allowed to drag on? Dkendr (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dkendr Well, considering this has been relisted twice, it may end soon unless someone wants to relist a third time. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

María V. Martínez

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:SOLDIER - CSM isnt senior enough - if she were Sgt Maj of the Army then yes. Page creator feels that as one of the few Hispanic Women to reach her rank she is notable. Is that enough? Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article María V. Martínez has been proposed for deletion because it is said that it fails WP:SOLDIER - where Command Sgt Majors are not notable however if she were a SgtMajor of the Army then she would be. It should be made clear that, unlike the claim of the nominator, the creator feels that her notability has nothing to do with her rank, if that were the case then many Medal of Honor recipients would not qualify because of their rank. Her notability has to do with her achievements and accomplishments in the military.

I believe her to be notable, not only because she is one of the few Latina/Hispanic Women to reach her rank, but because she is the Senior Enlisted Adviser to the Director of the Army Diversity Office in the Pentagon, Washington D.C., a very important position in the U.S. military. She is also the recipient of two Legion of Merit medals, a medal which ranks as the third highest United States Military decoration (after the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal). Martínez was also honored in 1989, she was recognized as the "Soldier of the Year" by the Milwaukee Recruiting Battalion.

She has also been awarded the following recognition's:

Recruiter of the Year 1987-88
Soldier of the Year 1989 Milwaukee Recruiting Battalion.
Department of Defense (DOD) Hispanic Image Award
National GI Forum Military Person of the Year, Washington DC
Recruiting Glen Morrell Order of the Medallion

Tony the Marine (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCOs are never kept just for doing their job unless they are the most senior NCO in the service. Her awards just aren't high enough for notability - many of them are internal awards recognised only by the US Army and the remainder are fairly minor service awards. The Legion of Merit is far too common to qualify a recipient for notability - you would have to have two Distinguished Service Crosses (not Medals) for that (and note they're for gallantry, not for just doing your job well). Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER and all other standards of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. That aside I disagree with Necrothesp's reasoning above as lacking any basis in policy (WP:SOLDIER is of course only an essay and is in no way prescriptive). Even "the most senior NCO in the service" wouldn't be kept unless they met WP:SIGCOV. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed only an essay. However, any of us who edit military articles know that in practice it is widely accepted at AfD and is a de facto notability standard. Neither do I believe I said that the most senior NCO in a service should be kept per WP:SOLDIER, which is not the case; they are, however, almost invariably kept in practice. The claim that there is no inherent notability is true per strict interpretation of the guidelines; but clearly untrue in the actual interpretation at AfD. There are no set in stone rules on Wikipedia; there is only consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and SOLDIER. Being one of the few (as opposed to the Few) is not enough; you need to be the first to have a chance. (P.S. Serving in the military isn't considered "servitude".) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 15 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} 02:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Watson

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Old BLP and GNG tags from 2008 still reflect the current problems with the article. Sources do not establish notability and provide poor biographical significance. Delta13C (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She easily passes WP: AUTHOR as a New York Times bestselling author. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR does not include the criterion of being an author of a book that makes a bestseller list. There are discussions going on at WP:Notability_(books), but there is no rule yet. I think it is a better policy not to simply use inclusion in a bestseller list to establish notability of a book, as these are based purely on sale volume. Even if we were to use the NYTimes bestseller list, the subject's book would be notable, and not the author of it. According to WP:AUTHOR in this case, the subject the person must be "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or their book must be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "The person's work (or works) either...(c) has won significant critical attention." There are other criteria, but I don't think they could possibly apply in this case. Delta13C (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book, made the "self help" list for two weeks in 2007, then she seems to have faded away. We know that the lists are not scientific, so I wouldn't rely on that alone for notability. LaMona (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all actually found enough links to suggest a better article here but nothing at Scholar, all in all, though examining these is actually not suggesting a better article at all as they're simply passing mentions and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 11 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} 10:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Line Delimited JSON

AfDs for this article:

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

Retrying as the previous AfD received no response but was closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination.

This is not an article about a web standard. It's a call to create such a standard, as made most explicit by the following message on the talk page:

If anyone is interested in developing a standard for Line Delimited JSON, please comment here. Suggestions for a better names and comments on the currently minimal specification would be gratefully received.

This goes against WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The present article does cite to would-be standards, but both are self-published. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts. And nominator seems to be right. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 5 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Paulsen

AfDs for this article:

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

While this was kept in an AFD discussion back in 2006, both WP:NPOL and our reliable sourcing rules have evolved significantly since then, and this no longer meets contemporary standards. Her notability remains limited to a city council seat in a city not large enough to confer an automatic NPOL pass on its city councillors, and a non-winning candidacy for higher office — and the only actual source here is a deadlinked article which is actually about somebody else who later outyouthed her "youngest person ever elected to council" claim, which means that the article doesn't pass WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, because it isn't sourced to any RS coverage of Paulsen. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat -- my sweeps didn't find enough to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's done nothing notable except gain political office. This office is not notable enough to satisfy notability, evidenced by the fact that only one other councillor of equal standing has an article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relatively unremarkable post, and otherwise fails WP:GNG, as per nominator. JTtheOG (talk) 05:12, 9 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. Opinions are divided about whether this is a 1E case or whether the sources suffice to convey notability independently from the event in which he died. Sandstein 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Swasey

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

WP:1E. Article should not exist - has already been moved once and should probably be salted. If not deleted, should be merged with 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep' - He was a champion Ice Dancer prior to his becoming a police officer. Masterknighted (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was a junior national champion. That's apparently not good enough, by WP:NSKATE criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then he was a hero police officer who died in the line of fire and the two put out together certainly add up to a notable profile as not a one event persona.Masterknighted (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hero police officer" is not a label Wikipedia editors assign to an individual. He still falls under WP:1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. If dying on duty makes a cop a hero, these are also American heroes. Googling a small sample of them finds no Wikipedia articles. There are a few bios in Category:Police officers killed in the line of duty, of various quality and at least one up for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he may not be notable for a single event, the combination of his junior national championship and his tragic death, pull him imho across the notability line. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor already noted, a junior national championship does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSKATE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two not-quite-enough points do not combine to make one that is more than enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, as I said "While he may not be notable for a single event, the combination of his junior national championship and his tragic death, pull him imho across the notability line." gidonb (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really don't. Still 1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below. The number in WP:1E is one, not two! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a non-encyclopedic second event doesn't make them not a 1E. If the second event isn't something that would get a person into an encyclopedia, then they haven't gained notability for a second event. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Yet the event is encyclopedic. It was in the encyclopedia well before the killing of the Garrett Swasey with the name of Garrett Swasey as a red link inside. [2] It has been suggested that for international events, the gold medal winners would be notable, also if they won the gold medal in the juniors. Because WP unjustifiably sets Luxembourg and Liechtenstein equal to the United States and the Russian Federation, national events in the latter should be considered the equivalents of international events in other nations. [3] Even if you would not accept the strong logic behind 2 (I hope you do), it would still bring the accomplishment of the Garrett Swasey awfully close to being notable just based on his national skating championship. [4] It has been suggested below that 2x0=0, which is mathematically true, but the zero is false. 2x0.75=1.5, drawing the article clearly over the notability line. [5] The golden medal in the national championship is actually the first event, not "a second event". Please do not stare too much at the events of the day. It is untrue that there is no strong logic behind WP:1E, it just isn't applicable in this case. 1 equals O-N-E. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness I am going to correct my own point 1. The ice dancing was missing from the article 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships and someone added it today. Hence it has the finalists and not all contenders. This notable event was there. I'll put the table below again, as it has been hidden (and some of the stuff there deserves to be hidden). gidonb (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice dancing

Rank	Name	OD	FD
1	Christine Fowler / Garrett Swasey [16]	1	1
2	Cheryl Demkowski / Sean Gales		3
3	Kimberley Hartley / Michael Sklutovsky
4	Rachel Lane / Tony Darnell	4	4

InedibleHulk, they may or may not combine to WP:N. As you will see in this discussion, everyone is going to weigh this differently and different conclusions will be equally legitimate. gidonb (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are often crapshoots. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Often they are, then often they aren't. Do you have any substance to add? gidonb (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Friends, fellow editors wikipedians please allow me to rephrase " Police officer who died in the line of duty protecting innocent lives during a politically charged multiple casualty fatal event Masterknighted (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the notability of Garrett Swasey draws from two distinct events:

and, more general, the associated careers in ice dancing and law enforcement, clearly WP:1E is irrelevant here. I suggest that the nominator will either withdraw this AfD for lack of rationale or will try to establish some rationale behind the proposed deletion. WP:1E applies to one event, not to two distinct events. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two events, and his role in each is small. His equally significant dance partner has no article, nor do the two other people killed in Colorado. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. These individuals are actually known for one event! gidonb (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing off-topic discussion - Please do not modify

And if one of the dead is later discovered to have placed second in a local beauty contest, that second factoid won't bump them up to notable. Neither does winning a junior championship. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to see if anyone connected to the shootings won a pie-eating contest 20 years ago, that will qualify them for an encyclopedia article, won't it? ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird as hell. I had initially typed "pie-eating contest", but replaced it with beauty contest for the nicer connotations. You're scaring me, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Too funny. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind a little humor, but all this is awfully disrespectful to the slain officer, his family, and community, and to other American sportspeople who won golden medals in national competitions. See table below. Please remember what we are talking about and keep civil. gidonb (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice dancing

Rank	Name	OD	FD
1	Christine Fowler / Garrett Swasey [17]	1	1
2	Cheryl Demkowski / Sean Gales		3
3	Kimberley Hartley / Michael Sklutovsky
4	Rachel Lane / Tony Darnell	4	4

Gidonb, no one is being disrespectful of the dead. Humor is a good thing, even after an event such as the shooting. Remember:

Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one will remember points that s/he disagrees with. A lot of folks would take offense by your comments and those of your friend. Even if this article would be deleted, this discussion remains, and would not add dignity to Wikipedia, to put it very mildly. gidonb (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes, no one is being disrespectful regarding the victims or the seriousness of the article subject. This is a deletion discussion, not the article itself, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Please, drop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] You know very well that I do not suggest creating a memorial. [2] With respect to the essay you quote, it would be easier to drop your lack of respect for the subject if you gave some indication that you actually understand my point. [3] With respect to notability, in my second comment I will show how Garrett Swasey (and Christine Fowler and many others) are notable -or near-notable at the very least- by logical application of skating notability criteria. [4] The AfD was rationalized under WP:1E which does not apply to two major events. Therefor the AfD lacks basis under our policies and should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 1: You are telling those using humor in this AfD we should be "respectful". Your very words suggest this AfD and its associated article(s) are deserving the same attitude and respect as a memorial. Regarding point 2: I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Regarding point 3: Swasey fails WP:SKATER and remains a WP:1E. Regarding point 4: WP:1E definitely does apply here, and I'm not the only editor to recognize this (see other comments that also support this article as a WP:1E. This AfD will not be withdrawn. Allow me to add a point 5: Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Not just at this AfD or dead people. The problem can be with a recently dead person, but is equally problematic with articles about WP:BLP. Bad humor and disrespectful comments, frequently about careers, including distasteful comparisons, are an ongoing problem at Wikipedia. Specifically in AfDs and on article talk pages. Jimbo has asked us all to work on this and I am sure many others have raised the problem as well. It's a major source of grievances. [2] Written in clear English. [3, 4] BIO1E doesn't apply to two events. The 1 here stands for O-N-E. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up Jimbo for the win? Nice try. Please drop the stick, the horse is beyond dead. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. I vividly remember him raising the issue in the early WP years! gidonb (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See? This is what happens when someone brings a fucking dove to a business meeting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - Swasey is mentioned at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, and his article should therefore be kept, merged or redirected to the article for that incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is redirected, will the recently redirected Christine Fowler automatically link to the shootings? That would be weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant point. The article on Christine Fowler should never have been redirected to Garrett Swasey, as both dancers participated as equals. gidonb (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-redirected her to the skating championship article. Still not quite equal, if her partner redirects elsewhere, but better. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a fine action! You and I can perform as equals, for example, in a musical duo, then we move on, and then one day you are notable and I am not. C'est la vie! gidonb (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Doesn't meet notability guidelines for ice skating or independent of the event in which he died. Valid search term though for a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. His skating career fails WP:SKATER, while victims of a notable event are rarely notable themselves (WP:BIO1E). Basically, 2 x 0 = 0. WWGB (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. A standalone biography is not warranted here, because a junior figure skating title isn't something that would have gotten him into an encyclopedia in and of itself — which means that he is still a 1E. But there's enough plausibility as a search term to support a redirect to the place where he can be appropriately discussed, which is the article about the event. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. A brave man and a tragedy but this article does not qualify as a standalone as @Bearcat and others have pointed out. Rarely is there an inherent notability (Wikipedia-wise) for victimhood alone. Quis separabit? 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Why can't we remember the good times instead? Is it because we didn't have Internet in 1992, or that figure skating doesn't appeal to most humans? At least he did something there, not just had something done to him. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion to which of T-W-O distinct events (plus associated careers), for which Garrett Swasey is notable, this article may be redirected to, illustrates very well why bio O-N-E event is totally irrelevant in this case. gidonb (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's now notable for two events, being a national champion in skating first —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have already noted here: he wouldn't have met GNG for WP:NSKATE, so no, he's not notable for two events. He wouldn't qualify for GNG because he's a 1E. 0+0 still = 0. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to be notable via NSKATE if he qualifies via GNG. The overall body of coverage spanning his life is sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing more off-topic discussion - Please do not modify

I suggest that instead of arguing with everyone here, WV will work on the rationale of this AfD as it doesn't hold water. Since Garrett Swasey is notable for two events and there is even an argument to which of these he should be redirected, if he would be redirected, BIO1E is irrelevant here. The number in BIO1E is O-N-E, not T-W-O. gidonb (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another option of course is to withdraw the nomination altogether. I think either-or would be a good idea. gidonb (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, read WP:BLUDGEON. After you do, I hope you will see: (1) Your agenda is showing; (2) You are being disruptive. Knock it off. Enough already. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, a nomination cannot be withdrawn when only 30% of !votes support keeping it. WWGB (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV I think you should read WP:BLUDGEON yourself. You already nominated the article so we know how you feel. You don't need to argue with everyone who wants to keep it. This is going to be a high-traffic article and thus busy AfD; just let the process play out please. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misdirected your comments to me "You don't need to argue with everyone...") when you obviously meant to direct them to Gidonb. He has 50 edits at this page, I have 19 (and with this comment, 20). You do the math. Never mind, I'll do it for you: He has more than twice as many edits to this page than I. Statistics are fun, aren't they? :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statistics are extremely misleading, as are the rest of your arguments. Your color scheme is nice, as is your ability to refer to WP essays. However these aren't policies and are not used correctly either. Anyone can take a look at this page and see for themselves after which opinions they will get an argument. If I would like to drop my opinion and move onto other edits (and I like to do that as anyone else), it would be very clear what option to choose. No, I do not have an agenda of arguing, I just hate this bullying of everyone who holds another opinion than yours. You even followed someone with whom you disagree to his talk page. In the end, redirecting or keeping (deleting is not a valid option yet you suggested that the article could even be speedied!) is a question of weighing. Those who like to move on, it is easy to see how they should weigh! gidonb (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, WV I most definitely meant it for you, as apparently you think WP:BLUDGEON doesn't apply to you. 20 edits already is fairly excessive in an AfD that's barely 12 hours old. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently missed the intended snark. Regardless, 21 edits for the nom is not unusual for an AfD as "busy" as this one has been. Not mentioning the 50+ edits for the editor actually causing disruption at the same AfD? Your cherry-picking bias is showing. Nonetheless, it appears at this point that this AfD will result in redirect. No amount of adding content and references to the article is going to make the article subject more than a 1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the number of events involved in this situation which constitute encyclopedic claims of notability is O-N-E, because one of the T-W-O events you're singling out is not something that would get a person into an encyclopedia. Which means BIO1E does apply, because the second event isn't a noteworthy event, meaning there's no 2E-making thing to even really consider. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is for people who were part of O-N-E major event. When someone is part of two major events and associated careers, other policies apply. Wikimandia suggested that WP:GNG can provide guidance for people with a diverse career who have been successful and have been noted before being murdered. A golden medal in the national championship in a federation the size of the US, where skating is very popular, and an associated skating career, next to a law enforcement career that also gets some coverage, does carry weight. As does being murdered in a high profile shootout. Just not enough for an article for that one event. Take the murderer for example. Totally fails WP:BIO1E! gidonb (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is for people who were part of O-N-E major event. Yes, that is correct. And the number of major, encyclopedia-article-earning events which this person has been involved in? O-N-E. A junior figure skating title is not an event that gets a person into an encyclopedia, and is not an event that turns 1E into 2E — and no amount of capitalizing O-N-E and T-W-O is going to change the fact that the number of encyclopedia-article-earning events that this person has is O-N-E and not T-W-O. HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific notability guidelines are more rigid, but do not trump the GNG. Several articles exist that attest he was well-known as a skater. It can be assumed he had sufficient coverage as a skater with the typical articles you'd expect of any junior national champion/Olympic hopeful. GNG is the standard by which he qualifies. Charles R. Doty is an example of this type of article - he utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN but he qualifies via GNG. You see how that works? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since all of the sourcing here is dated 2015, exactly not a single syllable of it actually demonstrates that he ever actually got over WP:GNG as a skater. You see how that works? Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - there is a 1995 newspaper article as well. Him being mentioned in a book from January also attests to his notability pre-shooting. It's reasonable to assume even more coverage exists of his actual career from offline sources, since not all newspapers and magazines are archived from the 1990s. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! gidonb (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG cannot be met by assuming anything about what might exist somewhere — it can only be met by actually doing the work necessary to show hard proof that the required level of coverage does exist. The subject-specific inclusion rules are the ones that leave a bit of room for assumptions about what the media are generally expected to cover, even if the article is inadequate — GNG can only be met by sources that are already sitting directly in front of us. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can work on this later this week. To a closing person: please do not close the AfD too soon so we will have sufficient time to further research notability. gidonb (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than enough extensive, high quality sources now to cover notability under WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH! Plus a range of 14 15 years. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that we agree on the principle. Now since the notability of Garrett Swasey draws from two distinct events:

and, more general, the associated careers in ice dancing and law enforcement, WP:1E is irrelevant here. gidonb (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the notability of Garrett Swasey does not draw on the 1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, because a junior figure skating title is not a notability-conferring event. So 1E is relevant here, and no amount of saying otherwise is going to make it otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument basically fails the little that we agree upon because you apply 1E twice even though we agree it is for one event. When you have a series of events and diverse careers in the public eye, binary logic does not apply. It can apply for one event and we agree (per policy, not necessarily above) that we usually round the derived notability down for that one event. For Swasey and other folks with diverse careers in the public eye all events and career facts should be considered and weighed together. Not by 1E or binary logic for that matter. One can still come to the conclusion that it just wasn't sufficient to keep, just not by 1E. gidonb (talk)

Basically resolved above. This part of the discussion was pushed downwards. gidonb (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not notable enough for his own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Good guy, but not anywhere close to having his own article and we're not a memorial. DreamGuy (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if it is a junior national championship (think of being the ace pitcher or MVP on a championship-winning Little League World Series team), it is a potential feeder to the Olympic Games. It is nationwide in the United States. This might not be enough in itself, but even if the manner of his death (an act of terrorism) is not enough in itself we see two realities that push him into the category of notability. Neither his athletic achievement nor being killed in a terrorist crime would justify a page for him (note that we do not have pages on every death in the September 11 attacks)... but put those together and one has notability. Without the junior championship in ice skating he could be simply mentioned in the page on the terrorist act.Pbrower2a (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Bad enough that some people think there is justification to prematurely create an article on the shooter, now they want to prematurely create an article about the victim of foremost attention? He's not notable outside of this one event. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why the rush to delete or redirect this article? Garrett Swasey's funeral won't even take place until 12/04. Scheduled funeral service speakers include Colorado's Governor Hickenlooper, the Mayor and Police Chief of Colorado Springs and the Chancellor of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. Over 10,000 people are expected to attend the funeral service and/or the following processional to the burial grounds. The processional itself might qualify for a Wikipedia article. Garrett skated with Nancy Kerrigan as a child, coached dozens if not hundreds of aspiring ice dancers over the past 16 years, was a co-pastor of his church and was loved and respected by 1000s of Colorado Springs residents. Not all of this is "notable", but this is still a developing story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.5.111 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2015‎

— 71.211.5.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing editor The above IP has no edits other than the above comment and their IP geolocates to the city in the article subject resided. Possible COI with the above !vote. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you trying this discredit one kind of opinions this time? That the person behind the IP has a conflict of interest with a dead person? Maybe you can explain a bit more? gidonb (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is perfectly acceptable for an editor to point out that a contributor to an AfD has no or few edits except this one, since it does inevitably raise questions about neutrality and motives. Most serious editors do work elsewhere on the project before contributing to AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the nature of that "interest"? Why does the fact that the IP is from the same geographic environment as the deceased (if true) make this particular opinion suspicious? Isn't it likely that people from the same geographic environment visit this page in greater numbers and people would access less as a function of distance (and in a grid more again as a function of population density)? gidonb (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the relevant bit is that this is the IP's only edit! Now, I don't know about you, but before I started editing seriously I didn't even know what an AfD was, let alone contributed to one! And that was a fair time after I registered. Yet here we have an IP contributing to an AfD as their first edit. That always raises questions and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out. There's absolutely no need to start challenging Winkelvi over it, as it is standard practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you honest answers and the fact that you try to defend Winkelvi's edits. My concern why Winkelvi would raise the geographic proximity as a major source of concern for this specific opinion goes unanswered, as does my question of the possible "interest" at hand, and my concern that this nominator engages or tries to discredit almost every person/opinion that happens to dissent with his specific opinion on this page, on their talk pages, through unjustified reverts, etc. I do have some questions also for you. Doesn't everything about this person's edit say novice? Let's look at the facts: this IP has never been used before, none of our WP concepts is used, no wikis, s/he doesn't even know how to sign! Isn't the template at the top of the Afd'd article with explanations and links also supposed to enable readers (that then become new editors) an option to provide their opinion? Doesn't this person, who apparently knows very little about Wikipedia, provide us with valuable knowledge about events in the Colorado Springs community? Why is this opinion then immediately flagged as suspicious for the closing editor for its geographic location, for its newbie-ness, and totally unclear conflicts of "interest"? Personally I see a lot of virtue in our low thresholds, especially also in this case! gidonb (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since I did not answer this bit: like this person and you, I gradually learned and many many years and edits later, I am still learning. I applaud people who have the courage and the curiosity to find an AfD page and to leave their novice opinion or their opinion that is well based in our guidelines. I think that it is all good! gidonb (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CRIME and WP:GNG. Clearly this article could not be deleted as per these guidelines right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth does this person fit either alphabet soup?DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, how on earth should BabbaQ know that he has been asked a question if you do not link his name? And while I'm at it, I will also link WP:CRIME and WP:GNG so you can look these up yourself! They are not alphabet soups! gidonb (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per WP:1E. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant guidelines for this AfD seem to be WP:INDEPTH (interestingly not mentioned before, but very relevant to the entree), WP:GNG, and WP:CRIME that all clearly justify keeping this article. When somebody dies under tragic circumstances, I also think instantly of WP:1E, makes total sense to think of this guideline, however this guideline is really for people who are (or rather are not) notable for O-N-E event and does not seem to be relevant to this article because of the multitude of events, the length, and in particular the depth of the coverage. As pointed out by the last IP editor, the dimensions of the coverage and events only start to be clear. For this reason I would have personally liked waiting a bit with starting this article, but, now that it is here, keeping seems to be the only reasonable way forward given our guidelines. gidonb (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 1-event argument is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? Why? DreamGuy (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was already a champion skater. Maybe you missed that part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Junior Champion once. Overall, placed 13th. Does not meet WP:NSKATE, therefore, his brief skating career isn't enough for notability. So, yes, WP:1E does apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, you keep trying to argue with everyone who disagrees with you and tells you that BIO1E (as in one E) cannot be applied twice or more and these opinions are getting more plentiful. Not without reason. If a person has a diverse career you need to look at the appropriate notability guidelines. Not just keep hammering with the wrong guidelines. That's why I suggested that you work on the rationale or withdraw this AfD. Your premise is wrong. Maybe the article still isn't notable also under applicable guidelines (theoretically that would be possible), but even to make that case you start from the wrong end! gidonb (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep ignoring the thing that's been repeatedly pointed out to you in response, which is that because winning a junior skating championship is not an event that constitutes a valid notability claim under our inclusion standards for skaters in the first place, it also is not an event that can turn a person from a 1E into a 2E. It does not count toward how many E's the person has — so he is still a BIO1E, because the other E is the only one that counts as an E at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No, I do not ignore anything! I keep responding and explaining that 1E is one E. Such guidelines are there for a reason. I will explain once more since it still did not resonate yet with all but the tables are definitely turning. Right now I am out of state on business, so for once I will keep my response short! ;-) Once I'm back home more text... gidonb (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do ignore something. 1E is one E, nobody ever denied that — what you keep ignoring is that there is no second event that counts as a notability claim at all. A person cannot cross the line from 1E into 2E if a second notable event doesn't even exist to constitute the 2E. It doesn't matter how many non-notable events you can add to his biography; if there is only one notable event, then he is still 1E regardless of how many other non-notable events the article includes. The article can list 100 different events from his life, but he's still a 1E if only one of those events is something that could potentially get him into an encyclopedia for it. Which is why your constant bleating that the number in 1E is "o-n-e" and not "t-w-o" does represent ignoring what's being said to you; for him to be a 2E instead of a 1E, there would have to be a second event that could confer notability at all. But there isn't. A non-notable event cannot magically turn a person from a 1E into a 2E, so he is a 1E because there's only one notable event to consider. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not home yet, but I think it is important to get everyone aboard. Potentially, Swasey is notable for all the important events in which he participated, stand alone and combined. If you are not willing to examine that potential, your are doing injustice to WP and yourself. Three of these four events have Wikipedia articles, hence notable themselves by community consensus:

1992 U.S. Figure Skating Championships - since the US and Russia are not the size of Andorra and Liechtenstein, the junior national title should be considered here for notability just by itself. The scales of these nations should be considered, given the huge interest and population size of both and be considered the equivalent of international titles elsewhere. Notable by WP:NSKATE.
1995 U.S. Figure Skating Championships - another achievement that was noticed in the press at that time, and combined with the title brought a figure skater author in January to write in a book this year that Swasey and his partner were "prominent" ice dancers. Notable by WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG.
2015 Colorado Springs shooting - the extensive and indepth national coverage, specifically of Swasey within the event, makes the subject notable by the standards of WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:INDEPTH.
The Funeral of Garett Swasey - does not have an article and hopefully will not get one, however probably the largest in the city's history, speakers and coverage in the local, regional, and national press galore, direct broadcasts, hence by itself probably notable, and definitely makes up for another important event through which the article should be positively judged through INDEPTH and GNG. Notable by the standards of WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:INDEPTH.

The bottom line is that by consensus Garrett Swasey is notable for five of our guidelines and it takes only one of these. In addition, the application of the guidelines, that are mentioned by the nay sayers, has been consistently refuted by many here, with good reason. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overall test of these five would of course be WP:GNG. Bearcat, if I understand correctly, at least until the explanation above, you still have some concerns about Swasey's notability under NSKATE and BIO1E. I do not understand how you -or anyone else for that matter- wishes to make the case that Swasey is *not* notable under GNG! Are the publications and television networks that have covered him not important enough? Is he mentioned not often enough? Is the coverage within the articles and other items not substantial enough? Please explain how you wish to make that case! gidonb (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - Subject of the article is not independently notable from event. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources suffice to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are there and he also came 13th in the adult championships, if 5 seconds in one match of pro soccer qualifies you then the junior win, adult placing and coverage of his death push him over WP:GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG, your premise is incorrect. 13th in adult championships and winning junior championship does not meet notability guidelines for skating per WP:NSKATE. This individual is still a WP:1E and does not meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, see question below under Dcpoliticaljunkie. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ice skating title combined with the extensive coverage of his death are more than enough to make him notable enough to have his own article here.Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie, a junior championship does not qualify for notability per WP:NSKATE. This individual is a WP:1E and does not meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, can you please explain why Swasey would not meet GNG? Are the publications and television networks that have covered him not important enough? Is he mentioned not often enough? Is the coverage within the articles and other items not substantial enough? gidonb (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, I disagree. I think it meets the coverage is substantial enough to meet the general guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 19:03, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedipya Joshii

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

~~One film wonder. The film itself is not very popular The Avengers 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 01:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I myself tagged this and I'm simply not seeing any better signs of better notability and improvement with only one coming soon film. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Subject seems to be a one-time wonder filmmaker who has made only one film. Hence redirect to his film Saankal. Also, User:Sandhya2012 seems to have made many biographic articles on such people. Of these following are redirected: Abhishek Bindal, Giresh Naik K, and Tanima Bhattacharya. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 December 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} 01:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a handful of minor Indian news search results. Director is not notable, the suggestion to redirect to Saankal is a good one. Aeonx (talk) 17:29, 26 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 (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch MacLeod

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

The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, awarded major national award - viz: Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion: therefore meeets WP:ANYBIO.

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The Keep comment does not respond to the lack of significant third party coverage raised in the AfD. Also, the comment above breaches WP:NPA and is not constructive. The articles submitted to AfD were detailed in another AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Bowen&oldid=686191498, by user User:NewYorkActuary due to the similarities in terms of lack of significant third party coverage. Perhaps the article author could attach sources which demonstrate significant third party coverage to satisfy notability. isfutile:P (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have expected to find something about the subject, even in relation to this award, in the Scottish media, but searches on both the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald return nothing. In the absence of that, and clear evidence that the many recipients of this particular award each year are inherently notable, it does not seem to pass the WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has added the name Murdo MacLeod to the article and AfD find sources. Murdo_MacLeod is a popular ex footballer with many references and news listings who is not the same person as the subject of this article and AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And is also the name of a photographer for the Guardian, and several other people. Finding references is not always easy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And also requires editors take care to ensure such references refer to the correct person it would seem. WP:BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murdoch_MacLeod 86.165.112.158 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 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. Numerically, the deletes are in the majority, but not what I would normally call a consensus. However, the keep arguments don't impress me as being well-founded in policy. I would have liked to see the references supplied by Yogesh Khandke get a more complete analysis, but I'm willing to go with Sitush's review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Srinivasan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails general notability. Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless better can be found and applied as I found some links at News, Books, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD but perhaps nothing convincingly better. Notifying past users Grutness, Utcursch and Bhadani and past user Yogesh Khandke. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if more can be found. First AfD suggested notability, but none of that appears in the article. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google News and Books give some evidence why this person can be notable.Cinelover (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am interested to know more about him, but I am not sure, if sufficient references are available - which year was he born, when did he graduate, what is his current job etc. He is definitely not a writer as he is an MBA with a tech back-ground J mareeswaran (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable has been widely quoted - ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

An incomplete list, and not all major publications, I see a Lulu there, but enough for me to vote keep!! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable per WP:AUTHOR - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Associate Professor Department of English Subarno Chattarji; Subarno Chattarji (1 March 2011). Tracking the Media: Interpretations of Mass Media Discourses in India and Pakistan. Routledge. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-1-136-70505-2.
^ Steven G. Kellman (2003). Switching Languages: Translingual Writers Reflect on Their Craft. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 16–. ISBN 0-8032-2747-7.
^ James T. Campbell (31 August 2009). Race, Nation, & Empire in American History: Easyread Edition. ReadHowYouWant.com. pp. 566–. ISBN 978-1-4429-9395-2.
^ Ramesh N. Rao; Koenraad Elst (2003). Gujarat after Godhra: real violence, selective outrage. Har Anand Publications.
^ Romesh Thapar (2007). Seminar. R. Thapar.
^ S. K. Agnihotri; B. Datta-Ray (2002). Perspective of Security and Development in North East India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 314–. ISBN 978-81-8069-165-2.
^ ^a ^b Suranjan Ganguly (1 May 2015). The Films of Adoor Gopalakrishnan: A Cinema of Emancipation. Anthem Press. pp. 158–. ISBN 978-1-78308-410-4.
^ Mattering to India: The Shashi Tharoor Campaign. Pearson Education India. 2011. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-81-317-5944-8.
^ Arvind Sharma (30 November 2008). The World's Religions After September 11. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-275-99621-5.
^ Diptanu Dey. Hinduism - A Critical Review. Lulu.com. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-1-105-27369-8.

Delete. Widely quoted is not notability, which needs references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per user Khandke clearly notable. 111.119.239.252 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, press releases and being quoted are not sufficient to get past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He wouldn't be widely quoted if he wasn't presumed to be an expert in his area. I agree with Yogesh Khandke that showing that someone is the "go to" person for a topic does add to their notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Seems borderline delete; subject does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thanks for the refs listed above but, really, there is nothing of substance there. Basically, per DGG. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 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. WP:BLP and WP:V are not negotiable. Without reliable sources, biographical information about living people must be deleted. The "keep" opinions make broad assertions about sources that are, in one editor's words, "out there", but because they do not actually provide these sources, their views are disregarded. Sandstein 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Duggan (actor)

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

The article relies on no sources with the exception of the Internet Movie Database, which isn't a reliable source. The article is also a stub and I could not find any info on Duggan. Fails WP:GNG Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as supported only by IMDB. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Here are some reasons:

There are hundreds of junk articles on Wikipedia that are mostly useless to all but a select few people. Many of them do not have any source (general) or references and are tagged. Wikipedia has allowed IMDb to be on many (MANY) articles, even when they are well referenced. This list includes "B"class articles like Elizabeth Taylor and featured articles like Elvis Presley. I have campaigned against using such links as references but they are still splashed all over Wikipedia much like Find-A-Grave or List of Playboy Playmates of the Month.

A difference here: is that there are more than 16 instances when Tommy Duggan has notability. Many of the playmates are (or were) only one-shot-wonders and to make Wikipedia look bad (some evidently think good) many of them were in lists redirected to lists to provide erroneous blue links.

This actor may not be famous, as others, but he is in the films listed and at least 16 of them have articles. If we start deleting notable but poorly references articles we would have to delete many thousands like Tony Quinn, Kathleen Byron, and Bonar Colleano, *BUT* only after we start with the one-shot-wonders, especially those without any source, or those that show a single source that is either dead or goes nowhere like Robert Atkins (actor) that lists a vague Touchstone reference and of course IMDb.

The point is that unless we are starting a Wikipedia wide cleanup, which would involve changing policy, as well as getting rid of IBDb, Find-A-Grave, the hundreds of ships that use navsource. We can not justify deletion of this article because someone doesn't like it, it uses a single source because nobody has taken the time to look harder, or he was not a "big screen" star. On a quick look I found references at Lockerdome and In.com. An Amazon company named Evi uses Wikipedia on it's mobile app to "answer questions about books, music, films, conversions, history, people, places and much more.", and guess what? They use Wikipedia to list Mr. Duggan. That has nothing to do with references but a reason not to start articles and just kill them off for no real reason. The site "Forgotten Actors" shows a picture of Duggan with blond hair, along with Larry Taylor in And the Same to You, that is a VERY short stubby stub and should certainly be deleted according to some reasoning. I suppose that if the British Film Institute (BFI) is considered a reliable source we could keep that one. Well shoot! Tommy Duggan has coverage on BFI that includes more recent The Lady and the Highwayman (1991), The Clothes in the Wardrobe (1993) as Father O'Flynn, and Grant unto Him Eternal Rest (1995) as Father Paul Cleary. Maybe he liked being a priest or was just type cast.

Conclusion: This actor has played in more than a few roles so should not be deleted unless we are "cleaning house". The article, like thousands, needs someone to spend a "little" extra time (if I found all the above so surely someone else could) and expand the article. Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- There are few sources where information can be found for him. It might be due to sources are archived or not easily accessible. With the filmography listed on the page, We cannot state that he is not notable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'IMDB is an unreliable source,' is too categorical a statement. For industry data on actors, directors, composers, producers, cinematographers, etc. IMDB is a reliable source, including awards received. Most of the biographical information on page 2 is glorified gossip and seriously unreliable. Not sure on birth dates, given names, etc. Tapered (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS/IMDB, IMDb is not usable as a reliable source at all. The reason for this is that anyone can submit information - even blatantly incorrect information. The best example of this I can give is Gretel Ashzinger. Someone had created an entire IMDb profile that made some pretty large claims: that she was a Disney performer (voice actor and was on a soundtrack), that she had given out some notable awards (and received some), and that she was going to be She-Hulk in Captain America:TWS. All of these were very easy to disprove, yet it took IMDb a fairly long time to actually detect that someone had created a hoax profile. That they didn't even remotely research the claims shows that they perform little to no actual research when accepting profiles - even if the profile is making some extremely major assertions. Does that mean that everything on IMDb is fake? No, but it's the main reason why Wikipedia cannot use it as a reliable source and would need a different source to back up claims, even if those claims are minor. I have no opinion on notability for Duggan, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as he seems to have simply been a commonly used background actor and there's no obvious better improvement here. Notifying Onel5969 who likes to be informed of these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Thanks for the ping SwisterTwister - This was a hard one. While Tokyogirl79 is right regarding the unreliability of imdb.com, as the end of their link states, "IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites." While IMDB shouldn't be considered a reliable source, the underlying essay on which Tokyogirl79's link is based says that sometimes it may be used (disputed) for "1.Released films only: Sections such as the cast list...". So, when you can verify that information in other sources, (e.g. AFI, BFI), it becomes reliable. In this instance, one can use the filmography to look at other sources to see if Duggan passes WP:NACTOR. Does Duggan hav significant roles in multiple films? Well he had a significant role (Brother Matteus) in The Final Destination, and he had a significant role in episode of the British TV series, Lillie. But that was just a single episode. The Omen was indeed a notable film, but his role in that is borderline. While simply titled "The Priest", it does occur in the second grouping of actors during credits, which in a major motion picture usually denotes some significance. If he had played Father Brennan, it would be a no-brainer. He had a significant role in Dead Man's Evidence, but is the film notable? And again, he had a significant role in 1954's Destination Milan, which was a film made up of 3 episodes of a television series, but again, it is notable? He also had a notable role in the British series Father Ted, although again, it was in a single episode. I haven't checked every cast listing for this person, but every one I have checked (30 or so, is verified). I think his body of work qualifies him for inclusion. However, following the guidelines of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, I think he barely squeaks by. For some strange reason, British cinema of the 40s and 50s is under-represented on English wiki, imho. The best source I can find for him is THIS, but it's not really that in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments: I have added a reference (general at this time) from BFI, removed the IMDb tag and added a "Oneref" tag.

I think it is sad that in order to prove a stub should not be deleted an editor must champion the article instead of showing the facts and then others agreeing that there is proof but the article needs tags and work. As it stands now a stub article, that is in need of work, can be argued to possible deletion by comments that the person (in this case) is not very notable ("commonly used background actor"), and "...there's no obvious better improvement here." (@SwisterTwister:), even with plenty of information to the contrary above the comments. An admin should discount these but it is not always the case. The reason the article was brought before a deletion discussion was because of 1)- "no sources", and 2)- IMDb as an only reference (not a reliable source), which gives rise to notability issues. It was also stated that the article was 3)- a stub, and 4)- no other information could be found. I have resolved the issues of number 1 and 2 by adding a reference from BFI. Number 3 is obviously not a reason for deletion and number 4 is obviously fallacious. More references are needed but this is a stub article needing work and not a start-class.

Trying to micro-manage just "how famous" an actor has to be, to determine the significance of an actors career, to determine notability for inclusion should be easy. Barely squeaking by is a "pass" as the options in this case are "delete" or "keep". Multiple supporting roles, more than two in movies or TV, would be a good indicator, as opposed to an extra or an unaccredited actor. If an indication of "significance" would be the name placing in the credits then being on page one as a supporting actor in But Not for Me (film) should add to notability for inclusion. General "notability" has not really been an issue, but the "significance" of the notability. Winning an Emmy, Academy, or a Tony Award makes it a no-brainer but Sean Connery's long, illustrious, and successful career was rewarded with only one Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. His notability spans generations and his other awards are numerous. I suppose it is a great thing we have supporting actors, because Sean never really was good enough (according to the industry) to win an Academy Award for a lead actor, although he did win a Tony Award. This actor does not have all the accolades of some but nonetheless has played significant parts in more than a few movies that more than justifies inclusion on Wikipedia.

The reason "British cinema of the 40s and 50s is under-represented on English wiki" could be attributed to the years not being particularly of interest to editors but could also be attributed to systemic bias, that was stated above, "It might be due to sources are archived or not easily accessible.". However, if we get rid of all those types of old movie actor articles (would that be bias?) we would not have to worry about it being an issue right? Otr500 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- There are problems with references as so many films were misplaced, lost, destroyed, or stolen during the time period, from the 1920s to the 1960's numbering around 400, but narrowed to the top 75 in the BFI Most Wanted list. Some of Duggan's films were made in France and Italy giving some complications. Now I know why it is hard to find some British film information. A Matter of Life and Death and some of the Dr. Who films were recently found, but the missing list is long, and scattered, involving more than one country. I am in the process of adding some references and looking for biographical information. Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources are out there 87.113.39.93 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:37, 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 without prejudice against rewriting. The discussion below showed that the subject probably has sufficient notability but the current state of the article is not fit for purpose. Please contact me (or any other admin) if you want the page history restored for redrafting. Der yck C. 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Maqsusi

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

I assume a lot of people feed the needy, but I don't think it's a criteria for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent any valid reason for deletion. The article's references appear to establish a reasonable case that the subject satisfies the GNG, and the nominator makes no argument otherwise. It's not necessary to meet an SNG if the subject meets the GNG. This is not the way to treat a good faith effort by an inexperienced editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)i[reply]

My reason for deletion is in nomination itself. As I wrote, I don't think hat establishing a kitchen for needy and feeding them using person's only small income as article says is the reason for encyclopedic article. It's definitely a good act, but we are not creating a story of good people here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" reliable sources is three, and we seem to have that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced these are 3 distinct sources. They seem like one article run three places with a few changes. They seem to tend to be from the local press as well. The process of creating this article seems to tend towards presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The subject does appear to be notable, but the current article contains nothing worth saving; it should be taken down until it's more comprehensible and less of a peacock-fest. Draftifying would also be a good option, if there's any realistic prospect of someone rewriting a decent article from those sources. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yes, there is a little bit of one source lifting from another, but there are also two articles from the same (presumably reliable) mainstream news source. And this is not a case of a single event, really; it is his work which is receiving attention, so keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11). No prejudice to a competent, neutral recreation that can then be examined again for notability. Sandstein 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL4 and WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 22 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} 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Listening Satanic

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

Fails notability under our general notability guidelines I'm finding no reliable third-party sources discussing this new musical genre, and only one recording act is showing up as a performer of this genre - an act that matches the name of the author of this article. I wish the genre innovator success in finding performers to join him in this genre, and building it to the point where it gets the attention he wants for it, but Wikipedia is the tail end of that process, not the start. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. If there were reliable third-party sources, we'd need to nuke the article anyways. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth saving even if it was a notable topic, which it isn't. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are Hymnbooks for Easy Listening Satanic available. I recommend The Reynoldsian Hymnal Vol. I at www.amazon.com/The-Reynoldsian-Hymnal-Vol-I/dp/1475040717 in addition to various hymnbooks and readings which may be found at lulu.com and typing in the reynoldsian hymnbook which will allow you to find volume 2. By typing in The Reverend and Dr. Robert Allen LaVey Reynolds into lulu.com you will find 31 books, some of which are filled with Easy Listening Satanic music.

I have a question. If all else fails can I be remembered as the Father of this genre again?

The Reverend

Your books do not qualify as third-party sources; you're the first party in this case. And as for who gets remembered as the Father of the genre: we don't have the ability to write the future here. Time will tell. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first one to ask for it though wasn't I? Will that be forgotten?

Delete per nom's rationale. --Lockley (talk) 05:14, 6 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} 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 FC Barcelona B season

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

WP:TOOSOON season wont start for 9 months and there is nothing notable in the article to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 15:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per both comments above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete perhaps? There's hardly much for an article yet so draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. I don't know if even the current season is notable enough for a topic. The third tier is Spain is not fully professional, don't know if club seasons are exempt. Also, I thought youth seasons are not notable, why the 2015–16 FC Barcelona Juvenil A season?--Threeohsix (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Threeohsix: Those are now at this and this AfD. Qed237 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. If this was not an issue, would also fail WP:NSEASONS as not in a top professional league. Given Segunda Division B is third-tier, non-fully professional, unclear how this could pass NSEASONS. Perhaps time will tell a different story and GNG will be met retrospectively at the end of the season, but that is not for another 18 months or so. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons already given. How can you have a squad list when the season hasn't even started yet? Spiderone 20:13, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Sonne

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

This activist was wrongly charged with a crime and is not notable for anything else, which I believe falls under WP:BLP1E. There is a possibility for a merge or redirect to 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests per WP:CRIME. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the underlying issues that it reprents regarding modern society and surveillance of citizens deem it worthy of being an entry that is kept, so that it is known. I belive this also complies with WP:BLP1E . It can, however, use some updating to reflect this. Payparking (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't think BLP1E applies since he's given a number interviews to the press and isn't really a low profile person: [18], [19], [20]. There's been coverage of him beyond reporting from the initial event (previous links and also [21], [22]) including his subsequent trial. I think he meets the WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:15, 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 14:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a low profile personality. several sources provides notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:FuriouslySerene, Sonne is a publicity-seeker and a public figure as a political activist, so this is not a violation of WP:BLP1E. Coverage of his activities clearly supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Garvey (Louisiana politician)

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

Local school board member, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage is hyper-local. Most sources are not independent of government. Mere mentions in relation to election campaign AusLondonder (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not local but regional. Member and vice president of statewide education board. Member of prominent New Orleans family. Article fully sourced (eight newspaper articles) and establishes notability. Even if considered "local" he can qualify under 2. Local politicians who have received significant press coverage. as far as notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sourcing is extremely poor unfortunately. Disclosure and election statements on government websites are not relevant. Sources about family members do not seem relevant either. AusLondonder (talk) 17:54, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability, much like hundreds of other articles created by this user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Guidelines say:People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. All of these criteria apply here. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but with respect, are you serious? What sources? Government financial disclosure statements? Articles about his father? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Ramon Antonio Vargas (August 19, 2010). "Lawrence 'Larry' Garvey, co-founder of Radiofone, dies at 73". The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Danielle Dreilinger (October 15, 2015). "BESE 1st District: meet the candidates: James Garvey". The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
"BESE member Jim Garvey announces he will run for reelection". The New Orleans Times-Picayune. September 2, 2011. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Mark A. Joyce (October 23, 2015). "Guest columnist recounts out-of-state money and PAC support going to campaigns of certain BESE candidates". Louisiana Voice. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Danielle Dreilinger (September 25, 2015). "Jim Garvey vastly outdoes Lee Barrios in BESE campaign funding". The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Will Sentell (September 29, 2015). "These 3 candidates' campaign war chests outweigh the rest in key BESE races". The Baton Rouge Advocate. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Jessica Williams (February 24, 2015). "With $158,000 in the bank, BESE member James Garvey confirms run for re-election". The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Will Sentell (September 12, 2015). "Candidates in BESE races have much different views on Common Core: 21 to vie for eight seats on board". The Baton Rouge Advocate. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
Will Sentell (October 25, 2015). "Backers of Common Core, other changes make clean sweep in BESE contests". The Baton Rouge Advocate. Retrieved November 15, 2015.
Elizabeth K. Jeffers. "Billionaires and their Super PACS Vie for Control of Education in Louisiana" (PDF). The New Orleans Tribune. Retrieved November 15, 2015. Clearly sufficient secondary sources here. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 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 14:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - A richly appointed article, but for all the polish of its prose, what we have here is a politician never elected to high city, state, or large city office, thus failing the WP:POLITICIAN high bar to inclusion. Seems to be a political mover and shaker in the campaign contributions department, but that is not a field of endeavor that is widely chronicled in the press. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out of the way to make this easier for the closer. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A richly appointed article with an equally rich variety of reliable and verifiable sources to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Billy Hathorn show it passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 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 redirect to DJGPP. There's not strictly a consensus for this redirect in the comments, but reading between the lines, I suspect most participants in the AfD would approve. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Delorie

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Sources are the subject's personal website and resume, and I cannot find better sources online. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've just added two book sources [23] and it's obvious there are more, though none appear to discuss the subject in much detail. I think we would probably keep the article in most similar AfDs per WP:CREATIVE #3 but I admit it's borderline. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although Books and browsers found some links, there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Yes, I instigated the article, so I should be very much pro, but I'm not. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure the DJGPP article reserves to stay. But OTOH I'm not sure whether this justifies the existance of the article on DJ, since his work on DJGPP seems to be his sole "claim to fame". Either way, I won't hold a grudge if the consensus will be to delete the article. -- Syzygy (talk) 17:14, 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 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJGPP. This isn't how I thought I'd vote, but I'm not seeing the coverage I expected. I think part of the problem is that a lot of the coverage would have happened in the early days of the Web. However, a great deal of this information has been digitized, and it's often possible to at least find text hits in many of the likely places, such as programming journals. And what these sources say is almost always the same sentence: "In 1989, DJ Delorie ported GCC to MSDOS." And then, almost invariably, the source describes DJGPP. For example, [24] from Dr. Dobb's Journal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DJGPP, as per above, particularly NinjaRobotPirate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiong

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

Not notable and WP is not a dictionary of emoji/characters. Mostly though no evidence of notability, as there’s just one ref and that is a dead link, and unclear how good a ref that is anyway; the article implies it was on another topic. Given the hatnote it might make sense as an Dab page, in which case the character can be included with a link to wiktionary, e.g. wikt:囧. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rise of Jiong from an obscure Chinese character to one of the most widely used emoticons is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon. The article needs better sourcing, but Jiong is far more notable than Duang, for example. It has also inspired some extremely popular films such as Lost in Thailand, whose Chinese title is Thai Jiong, and Lost in Hong Kong (Gang Jiong). -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just should be expanded as Zanhe said. WP:WORDISSUBJECT states that it should include information on the social or historical significance of the term. This is very much doable. Ceosad (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment then where are the sources? Being used in a couple of film titles is not enough and without sources is original research. If it really is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon, especially an internet one, it should be easy to find sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately numerous China-related articles are poorly written and poorly sourced. I've just added three scholarly sources to the article. The huge phenomenon has been studied in quite a few English-language academic works. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 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 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – plenty of Chinese language reliable sources, such as this article by Apple Daily and this by Southern Metropolis Daily. Try to search for native-language sources WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. sst✈^(discuss) 02:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a descriptive article about languages which is acceptable under WP:NOT. STSC (talk) 02:37, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leiki

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

This article fails WP:CORP and WP:SOAPBOX. WP:DEL4 is a very close call considering the tone of this article and WP:COI. I tried to find reliable and independent sources for this article, but all of them struggle to cope with WP:CORPDEPTH or are not independently reported. Saying this makes me retch, but the best source was this one in which the CEO proudly states how he used Wikipedia for advertising to get into USA (WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COI). The awards received are typical third-rate startup company awards and do not prove notability. This page has been recreated after being speedily deleted back in 2009, and has somehow survived for years. Ceosad (talk) 15:50, 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 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:TNT at best as the Finnish Wiki has some sources although I'm not familiar with any of them but again there's not much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:58, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tashiana Washington

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

Insufficiently notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Absolutely not. Stars in The Jim Gaffigan Show, How to Make It In America, Gimme Shelter.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/gimme-the-loot-20130321

http://bullettmedia.com/article/tashiana-washington-on-gimme-the-loot-south-by-and-going-to-graffiti-school/

http://www.vibe.com/2013/03/vixen-chat-tashiana-washington-talks-gimme-the-loot-and-actresses-she-admires/

http://filmmakermagazine.com/94751-livi-newman-on-shooting-successful-sex-scenes-at-the-sundance-directors-lab/#.VlJQp8rOA55 Alejandrad117 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I'm not quite as emphatic as Alejandrad117 above. However, I think there's enough coverage to warrant a keep: [25] from Complex, [26] from Slant Magazine, [27] from Vibe, [28] from Paper. I can see how it could be debatable, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. This is a COI entry by a user who is currently gunning to recreate the article on Eric West, another non-notable trumped-up faux celebrity, which article has been deleted six times. Softlavender (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if neede at best as not only is IMDb summarizing her career well, my searches found links at Books, browsers and Highbeam but they're all basically routine coverage and passing mentions. Simply not much for a more compelling keep yet, SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:19, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. No !votes aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Doldersum

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

Questionably notable and improvable and also speedy and PROD material as my searches simply found nothing at all and it simply seems he's best known for Big & Small. It's worth noting the original author was removed of his editing capabilities exactly one day later or else I would've tagged this as G5. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm curious why you brought this to AfD if you think it's 'speedy and PROD material'. I certainly don't think it's speedy material, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage around. I did find this. --Michig (talk) 19:06, 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 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chithra Lakshmanan

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

Seemingly questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found were only this, this, this and this. There's simply nothing to suggest he's better notable and the article is improvable as keepable. I considered speedy and PROD but it seems AfD is best for this. Notifying past users and taggers AllyD and DGG (no actors I know, DGG, but since you once edited this ). SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 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 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail basic WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 6 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 Merge Not enough sources for a stand alone article. The common name makes its more difficult to find sources. History preserved if sources are found. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt Souls

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

musical ensemble that fails all 12 elements of WP:BAND. While they've released material on Moving Shadow, #5 requires 2 or more albums - which they do not have. Alvarado may be notable on his own, but clark is not, failing #6. The Dissident Aggressor 06:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches clearly found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 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 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alvin Risk. Doesn't merit a standalone article but should be covered in the article on the notable member. A source that can be cited to confirm basic facts: [29]. --Michig (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 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} 14:01, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Childers

AfDs for this article:

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

Certainly time for another AfD as the first one had no benefits at all; this article is questionably notable and improvable and even speedy and PROD material but as I found some links here, here, here and here. Basically, the only seemingly outstanding part of the article is "first female to anchor a top-rated 10pm newscast" (which is what made me reconsider boldly tagging as A7) but that's hardly notable for one major city's timeslot. Notifying author Skatefan and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. probably delete unless there's something substantial for the years after 2008. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Childers was a prominent, long-serving newscaster in a major media market. Over the years, both Chicago newspapers have had reporters who focused solely on Chicago's own media scene, and Childers' career was covered in a fairly good amount of detail. The current Wiki page cites a few articles, but there are a lot more. For example, the "Blond beauty" article was just one of a four-part series of 600+ word articles by Robert Feder (literally called "Mary Ann Childers -- The Mini Series"; there's even one Chicago Reader article about the series itself:[30]). She's now working in PR ([31], [32], [33]), so the level of coverage isn't what it once was, but I think she has earned her place in Chicago history. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add one thing: in 1987, Robert Feder wrote, "With the obvious exception of Oprah Winfrey, the most popular television stars in Chicago today are WLS-Channel 7 anchors John Drury and Mary Ann Childers." (This is cited in the article.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why bring this to AfD at all, SwisterTwister when the last discussion was Speedy keep? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several factors Megalibrarygirl, (1) the nominator situation affected the AfD entirely, (2) there was hardly an actual consensus for "speedy keep" and (3) the article still currently looks questionably notable and improvable and I haven't found any means of better improvement. I'm all for this being restarted better if needed though, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SwisterTwister, I took a better look at the old AfD and you're right, there was no consensus... just one vote. Weird that it showed up as a "speedy keep," I'd have written that up as "undetermined!" Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources exist, per above, so article should exist. --Jayron 32 05:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I'm a bit out of line, but why would someone suggest a fairly well-sourced article about a high profile TV news anchor in a major market for deletion? There are so many pages on here for obscure bands, actors/actresses, etc. Because a couple people feel that Mary Ann Childers isn't notable? I think there are millions of viewers for whom she was a household name for more than a decade. -Skatefan (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article, profile in major daily paper.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Tumulty

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I'm not entirely sure she satisfies journalists notability guidelines (maybe the #1, "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors") but as such, I'm nominating as the best links I found were only this, this, this and this. Notifying past user Gobonobo and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. for both lack of notability and for the promotionalism: the articles is composed primarily of the names and links to the famous people she happened to do a story on--or even just were her guest at a dinner. I think it fair to assume that such padding indicates there's nothing substantial to write. The 2008 controversy is much too minor. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep. Karen Tumulty has been a prominent and widely respected political reporter for decades. So I guess it doesn't surprise me that people unfamiliar with political journalism would have the impulse to delete the article rather than improve it. (It could be improved, of course, but that takes time that you'd rather spend polishing your deletionist crew.) You know, when the predominantly male editor community takes a total of five minutes, tops, to decide to delete an article about a prominent woman, it's pretty clear to me what's up. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALIST #1 and WP:BASIC. Tumulty is a well-known and prolific US political correspondent. She has written over 36 cover stories for Time magazine and serves as a news analyst for various television shows. She received the Gerald Loeb Award and Edwin Hood Award. The sourcing on this article was less than optimal, but reliable sources have significant coverage on her career (see e.g. HBSB). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs major work (the White House Correspondents' Dinner paragraph is particularly painful), but Tumulty is notable. I believe she easily meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1, although I'm not sure of the best way to show it in the article. Gobonobo pointed out the notable journalism awards. An interesting measure of a writer's body of work is how frequently Wikipedia cites it. Looking through our articles on US politics, from Barack Obama to United States Congress, Tumulty is cited over and over. Worldbruce (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources on her highly regarded career easily pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:18, 1 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Steeds

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

Questionably independently notable and improvable as the best I found was only this, this, this and this and I'm also nominating as I'm not sure whether there's a keepable separate article here or he should simply be moved to the TV show's article. Notifying past users Ukexpat, Twinsday and also DGG who lists to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. finalist who never actually won anything; presumably not notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 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 14:24, 29 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} 10:54, 6 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) clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Buchman

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

Seemingly questionable notable and improvable music biography as the best I found was only this, this and this. Notifying past users Mentifisto and J04n and also DGG who lists to be notified and may have some classical music insight.. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be quite important as one of the first female principal brass players with an American orchestra. Long LA Times profile from 1988[34]. One book reference already cited in article too.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:50, 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 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weak claim to notability. Subject is obviously a competent musician, but the article mostly drops names and has little in the way of strong sources we require for BLPs. Agricola44 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The LA Times story and the small book mention cited above as well as discussion of her achievement in this encyclopedia article [35], on Minnesota public radio [36] are sufficient for the GNG (especially considering that many sources from the time of her achievement would not normally be found online). Principal musicians at major orchestras have generally been found to be notable at AfD. San Diego Symphony is just below that bar, but the coverage for her particular glass ceiling breaking is beyond that of musicians at similar institutions. Her achievements at Hamilton College are not enough for WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she's worth keeping. I'm going to add the sources when I can tonight. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:57, 3 December 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} 10:54, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihajlo Zurković

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

Seemingly even speedy and PROD material as there's simply not much and also no better notability and improvement as my searches also found, nothing better than these links. Of course I considered speedy and PROD but as International Chopin Piano Competition is the only subject with an article, I thought there may be Serbian sources. The author Mishae is now removed from their editing capabilities but tagger NatGertler is still active and Wikimandia may also want to comment for Serbian insight. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one thing tagger NatGertler lacks in this world, it's Serbian insight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wait, my eyes blipped right over the vital Wikilinked word there. That makes more sense. I'm still to busy to dig in and see if this guy truly is notable at the moment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This pianist is notable, we have a lot of sources about him, just article needs to be fixed, but we should not delete this one. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:47, 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 14:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he does have somewhat regular news mentions [37][38][39] highlighting his accomplishments —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:48, 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 redirect to Our Lady's Rosary Makers. Due to low participation, I'm closing this with no prejudice against recreation. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Mattingly

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A redirect to Our Lady's Rosary Makers is probably the best option. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect Too thin of an arc for notability by himself, although certainly the organization he founded is notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not enough in depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 29 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} 10:52, 6 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} 10:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahwey ali mata

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

Insufficient google hits to even verify its existence. KDS4444^Talk 14:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Either not notable or a hoax. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Yann (talk) 09:58, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shia Muslims

AfDs for this article:

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

INCREDIBLE load of OR and POV with ZERO precedence on Wikipedia. Do we put every notable Shi'ite in there? I would imagine not, unless of course we are going to make a list of like ten or twelve thousand names. A quick look at Lists of Jews shows that such lists should only act as "Lists of lists", i.e. they should be giving information about all other lists of certain people that exist. Therefore I am nominating this for deletion as the category Shia muslims already exists FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, likely even a WP:G4 Speedy delete (result of previous AfD was "delete"). This is one of those instances where a category is more appropriate. A Shi'ite can be anyone of an estimated 130 to 190 million Shia Muslims. A "list of Shia Muslims" is just too vague, may include pretty much any Muslim from Iraq/Iran and is a perfect example of point 6 of WP:DOAL: Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. Also note that the creator of the article was blocked for socking. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~By the way: there's already a Lists of Muslims. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
Revoking my vote, among others per below Keep rationales. There seem to be lots of —IMO way too— unspecific navigational lists, for example the sub-lists in Lists of Americans. Although these lists (not the individual entries) will almost always fail "significant coverage in reliable sources", their extensive use requires a community-wide verdict about whether or not they should be exempted from GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering. Incidentally, the first two sentences of WP:NOTDIR are key here. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of Jews also has an extensive set of links to Lists of individual Jews, grouped a variety of reasons, including lists that in theory would be every bit as massive as the ones cautioned against above. 'There's XX million of them are we going to list them ALL?' seems to come up every single time a list like this comes up for deletion, and yet WP:LISTPEOPLE offers sensible ways for how such lists are to managed. According to Lists of Muslims this is the only list of Shia Muslim people, far as I can tell, and being Shia or not is obviously a defining distinction. That said, I have no patience for socking and if there is some WP:DENY reason for deleting, I won't stand in the way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal, and per WP:NOTDUP as complement to Category:Shia Muslims. If this list gets too large, then it can be converted to a list of lists. That calls for development, not deletion. The prior AFD was eight years ago and so few admins would consider it binding enough now to merit speedy deletion; the arguments in that AFD are also contrary to existing list-related guidelines and consensus (and may have been even at the time, I don't know). postdlf (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my thinking too. If that List of Shia Muslims ever gets problematically big, then that's the time to do precisely the sort of splitting off by List of Fooian Shia Muslims that we see currently with the Lists of Jews by country, occupation, Sephardic, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have dozens of other lists on Wikipedia such as List of Jews and List of Ahmadis. Should they be deleted aswell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.121 (talk • contribs)
Keep, the list of e.g. theologians is obviously necessary. Not so sure about sections like "entertainment and media personalities" however. Siuenti (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedents already cited above.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is under category of Lists of people by ethnicity. Saff V. (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad faith nomination by user based on other recent AfDs created —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:52, 5 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semtex Girls

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

The origin of this article is questionable and so is its notability. The sources state that singer Madonna "'uses the name for pure promotional purposes. We can't really prove that we suffer a loss from that". I find that the only content that I can find all over internet is that Madonna said that she has a limited company called Semtex Girls and that Explosia, who owns the explosive Semtex sued her. I find that this does not stand on its own as an independent article and should be deleted. Those two content can easily be added to Madonna. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found no convincingly better coverage aside from trivial coverage at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 29 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} 10:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails to meet notability and there are many claims that have {{citation needed}}. Also, sources like Internet Movie Database are not reliable. GagaNutella^talk 16:00, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply RISC

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

I am unable to find RS to show this meets the GNG — Rod ^talk 13:22, 29 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} 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As already noted, this semi conductor manufacturing company fails the subject based notability threshold of WP:ORG as well as general notability. No WP:SIGCOV of reliable source, what I found is only press releases, mirrors and unreliable blogs. Coverage is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Jim Carter 06:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly even speedy material as there's nothing to suggest better here not even minimal general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 14 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} 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Fights Box scores

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

Non-notable listcruft of original research and all primary-"sourced" scores, violating WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. The creator has been repeatedly warned that such lists are not encyclopedic and constitute OR: Talk:Screen Junkies#Movie Fights section and User talk:Andrewjshick#Screen Junkies Wiki. Also, admins might want to take a look at the June revision history of Screen Junkies, since it appears that said creator wants to eternalise the listcruft, even if that means one has to go all the way to a specific historical version of the page. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of said reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, but this looks like some kind of high score list for a non-notable contest on YouTube. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the linked sections of the nomination. Sam Walton (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. Listcruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and above reasons. Virtually all of the refs are to YouTube. Not encyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:22, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southsound Radio

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

Small radio station with an orphan article. I can't find RS to show it meets GNG. — Rod ^talk 12:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources here [40] (Sorry internet's being an arse so can't link individually atm.). –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 5 December 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} 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some radio station articles sometimes may actually be questionable but this one seems acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 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 redirect to Sick (EP). The consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article at this time. I redirected the page to the EP article per the nominator's suggestion, but this can be retargeted at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Have a Problem

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

While there are two other Beartooth songs that are legible to have their own articles (since they have entered the charts) I'm not seeing a reason why this song in particular has one. The only source it has just verifies that it will be a playable song on the new Guitar Hero Live game, the rest is unreferenced and even if it was I'm not sure how this makes it notable enough to warrant an article. SilentDan (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 1 December 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} 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Fails WP:NSONGS, but still a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect where? The album? (And which one? It was recorded on two.) The band? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the single was released to promote the EP initially, so I believe that's where it should be redirected to if not the bands discography. 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentDan297 (talk • contribs)

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} 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrikonam

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

"crowd funded first foray into film-making" to cite the only usable ref. Not notable. Seems to have been shown in public 4 times only. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

and: WP:INDAFD: Thrikonam "Vijesh P Vijayan" "ത്രികോണം"

Request: This topic need input from Malayalam-reading Wikipedians. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page as we need to acknowledge the crowd funded 1 hour film which are not always getting the recognition. As the film is a low budget one, its news are also not very common, but the page is already having sufficient references. Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 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 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

leaning to delete, actually no claim of notability and I've found nothing of substance in my searches. Apart from the searches, according to the same article its cast is of "newcomers" and its theatrical release consists of just four afternoon screenings, so it's very likely that it did not received enough coverage to pass GNG and NFILM. Cavarrone 22:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film is notable on a social and economic level for being crowd funded in Malaysia especially if it is the first of its kind46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that article was closed as delete but has now been restored for further discussion. The following comment was made after the close.

Disappointed - * I am really disappointed by the deletion of the article Thrikonam. It was the first crowd funded 1 hour short film made in Kerala, India and the page had sufficient references including a Malayalam news channel report about the film.[41] Yes, it was shown only 4 times to public and the numbers will increase. We should have given the right due for that project in wikipedia and I request you to recreate the page as the film has been released officially in youtube. [42] Rajeshbieee (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion on my talk page I agreed to undo the AFD close and relist for discussion of sources that now include a news broadcast and something from the times of india Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the film itself is notable. The article just states that it "is" crowded funded, not anything about whether it is the "first" Indian or first Malayalam-language or first short crowd funded film or whatever. I don't believe that the first crowded film for each country or for each language is sufficient for being notable. If it was (or as the discussion seems to indicate, if it becomes) notable as a crowd-funded film, then it deserves a mention at Crowdfunding#Significant_campaigns per WP:NOPAGE. Otherwise there is no evidence that this is a notable film standing on its own, even with the youtube release. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. -‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:26, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Alberta

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

Fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Sources are self-published, dead links, press releases, or only tangentially mention the organization if at all. Kelly ^hi! 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ACT Alberta stands for "Action Coalition on Human Trafficking." Did the nominator bother to check this? A Gnews search for the organization yields good enough results to meet ORG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits =/= sources. Sources = sources. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem fine to me, for a charitable organization. (Updated a dead link.) -- Elmidae 08:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of reliable sources. Cavarrone 12:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real source is three-paragraph mention in Invisible Chains -- and the first paragraph of that mention was lifted wholesale for the article's "About" section. And for such an important organization, its listed acomplishments are mighty mighty thin. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I linked to above, this Gnews search clearly shows prominent coverage from news orgs across the province. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't even a particularly close call: I found multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject organization in reliable, independent sources on the first results page of a Google News search. I am happy to start listing and linking them, if necessary, but instead I would urge the nominator to (a) review the applicable notability guidelines for organizations, i.e., WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and (b) make a concerted effort to better perform WP:BEFORE due diligence before filing any more AfDs related to the ongoing fallout from the wholesale creation of unnecessary and rather odd redirects by the creator of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no national coverage. Again, this is a LOCAL org and news coverage in its area does not establish notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the policy that reliable sources must be "national"? Alberta is Canada's 4th most populous province, and coverage is not limited to one city only, therein. That doesn't meet "local" by any reasonable definition of the term -- not that "local" coverage is a reason to disregard GNG anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AUD on the Notability for Organizations guideline for local/regional orgs. This was plainly explained to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucson Pride and yes it is policy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Afd that for the org that was notable, as I argued? As for WP:AUD, I don't see why you feel it supports your argument. It states "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." We have significant regional coverage here, across a major Canadian province. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me rephrase that somewhat: ACT is a province-wide group and has received significant coverage from news outlets in Edmonton, Calgary -- its two major cities -- as well as smaller centres. It is therefore clearly not "single city or metropolitan area" as prohibited by AUD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and read that AfD and note the reason why it was withdrawn. It had nothing to do with your arguments for notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know why it was withdrawn and why you closed it. Anyway, my point about the inapplicability of WP:AUD here will be my last word, unless absolutely necessary. We'll see what happens. That's hopefully it for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This outfit seems more notable than others in the same garden, but it's still very, very thin, with mostly mentions in (fairly) local media. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be better improved as some of the listed sources may be signs of more coverage. If not, delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the claim of notability here? They created a petition, contributed to a report, and got two grants, and most of the sources are not WP:RS or are self-published. I actually think this could have been speedied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looks like there's enough to pass WP:ORG. Some of these are already linked but here's what I turned up: Invisible Chains, LawNow magazine (HighBeam link), Edmonton Sun, Edmonton Sun (video, separate story), CBC's Radio Active podcast, Edmonton Journal, CBC News, Global News, Metro, Edmonton Examiner, Daily Herald Tribune, CBC News, Daily Herald Tribune... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 14 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! 02:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State or provincial organizations of this sort are rarely notable. I see insufficient evidence to consider this an exception DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For full transparency, this has been canvassed by SwisterTwister to DGG. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: WP:CANVASSING is "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". While I don't quite get the context for this message from SwisterTwister on DGG's talk page, it doesn't look like canvassing. More like some AfDs that need more participation and someone who is known to be willing to participate. Also, DGG !voted delete and SwisterTwister !voted keep (well, tentatively), so even if it were canvassing, it would've been inconsequential. Nothing to see here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing doesn't guarantee outcome. All I know is that if I had done something like this, I'd have been banished from Wikipedia. Double standards anyone? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy:, at one time I tried to comment of all afds where I knew enough to say something useful. I cannot now do so, so I started trying to spot those that either were in subject fields I care about or that had multiple relistings about which I could try to get some consensus--or close. I no longer can scan them all myself even for this, and I ask SwisterTwister (and some other people) to notify me about a selection. I more frequently than not take the view ST does, but only about 2/3 of the time, and whether I am likely to or not doesn't seem to be the criterion ST is using--if it were, I'd discourage them from asking. Have you noticed also, the complete difference is the basis of our two arguments? ST tends to go by the GNG; I tend to use other considerations. ST usually searches for sources; I often analyze in more detail the ones that are presented. More generally, ever since I realized I couldn't do everything, I have deliberately decided to work first on problems people presented to me. By now they know that I will often not give the response they might be hoping for, or might be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the list? Please notify me anytime too! (FYI - If you are notified about an AfD, the one thing that you absolutely shouldn't be doing is closing them!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if I am notified about an AfD and the decision has been obviously made by the discussion, of course I may close it. People sometimes ask me specifically to do that, oor ask me to close a long -running discussion which is not obvious. I then do what I think fits the situation. I've been doing it for years. Is there some particular close you would like me to reconsider. What list are you referring to, btw. If you want to see prior notifications, look at my talk p. history. I do not keep them or even archive them after I have done with them. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this one more go to find consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 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 Rename to Zeferu K-570. The consensus is that the aircraft itself is more notable and the article should be renamed and restructured to reflect that. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asmelash Zeferu

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

This living person has attracted wide media attention. This is the reason I have declined the WP:A7. In my opinion, this article fails the test of WP:BLP1E, as Mr Zeferu has only "made the news" for his home-made aircraft. As always, please prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he successfully flies his aeroplane in the future, he would be the world's first to do so. He apparently made it out of Youtube tutorials, which is quite amazing. Maybe this isn't enough, perhaps? I'd continue to search for sources. Mrkenjiex24 (talk)

Delete. Person not notable. This page was earlier deleted on CSD A7. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need a global historical perspective here. The Zeferu K570A is to Northern Africa as all those pioneer aircraft were to Europe, which failed to fly between 1903 when the Wrights first took America into the air, and 1906 when Santos-Dumont did the same for Europe: failures like the Phillips Multiplane I and Vuia I. This article needs more work to add the aeroplane, is all. (And if the K570A does eventually fly, it will become as notable to North African history as the Santos-Dumont 14-bis is to Western European history.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the basic details. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move and restructure to Zeferu K-570. The aircraft is what is most notable here; the constructor-pilot can be covered in the article on the aircraft itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I voted above to keep. Move and restructure (per The Bushranger) would be OK, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:21, 14 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} 10:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) 2015 Match Scedule

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

Purely a schedule, so it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically point 4. There's already a page about the 2015 Bangladesh Premier League if anyone is interested in adding match results. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but a list. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the info is already in the 2015 Bangladesh Premier League article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:50, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Khan

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

In the article, it's claimed that she has acted in many movies, but in IMDB and Bollywoodhungama , they mention only one unreleased movie.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7739777/

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/index/id/80935603 The Avengers 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Diana Khan has acted in so many movies, but because of lack of references I have not mentioned her other notable works, but because you questioned, I have made some changes, so review the page again.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohd Arshad Qureshi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm simply not seeing anything better than a few work roles here and there and some coverage for it, nothing to suggest solid general notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the page should be deleted? Diana Khan is more popular than so many TV actresses in India. She is playing the main lead in next year's one of the most anticipated bollywood films. She did Humsafars and right now she is playing one of the main leads in Parvarrish - Season 2. She did 2 endoresements. She is there on IMDB. Citations mentioned for the verification are more than sufficient. The page was created 3 weeks ago and it has already got nearly 5,000 views. The page should not be deleted. --Mohd Arshad Qureshi (talk)

Delete This article should be deleted.Suman420 (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing with my research and i also fail to find any source that claim her appearance as main lead in Ghayal Once Again. Possibily Too soon. Singh (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are more than enough for the verification of the page. --Mohd Arshad Qureshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Read this article: ^[1] --Mohd Arshad Qureshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 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 speedy keep. There is enough consensus here to keep. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Roberts (footballer)

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

I am unable to find RS to show he meets the GNG — Rod ^talk 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming good faith with the source cited, he satisfies the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. --Michig (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a second source, hopefully this should be enough to establish notability. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, clearly notable with over 100 appearances as a professional footballer. Giant Snowman 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many information sources from before the 1990s are not yet available on the internet, but that doesn't make them any less reliable. He has over 100 verified appearances in professional football and easily passes WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets the appropriate notability standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 17:41, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transparallel processing

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

These two article were written by a single author, with only trivial edits by others. Transparallel processing relies strictly on primary sources, all cited to a single person (van der Helm). Transparallel mind cites a variety of incidental sources, but as far as I can determine the "transparallel mind" concept is only supported by the van der Helm sources. I did extensive Google searching and I could not find any independent Reliable Sources for them. They both appear to fail our WP:notability policy, and do not appear to have any recognized usage or acceptance independent of van der Helm. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The software tagged the author for possible conflict-of-interest on his latest edit. The article author's only other edits consist of inserting improper external links to van der Helm's private webpages into various articles, WP:CITESPAMing van der Helm refs into various articles, and inserting Transparallel text&links to various articles. I'll do any appropriate cleanup after this AFD is resolved. Alsee (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) Do international peer-reviewed academic journals not count as Reliable Sources? (2) What would/could be the conflict-of-interest? Gumum (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Research published in an academic journal is a Primary Source. Primary sources have caused a lot of problems for us in the past, so we limit where and how they may be used. Our policy on Primary Sources begins: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. The short summary of our Notability policy requires an article topic has received significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Transparallel processing only cites primary sources by a single author, and as far as I could determine the additional sources in Transparallel mind don't mention the that concept. My Google search turned up no independent sources to support either topic.

(2) Our Conflict of Interest policy begins with Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Someone with a conflict of interest isn't the most impartial person to decide whether we should have an article, or how it should be written. I'll move further discussion of the COI software alert to usertalk. Alsee (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ad 1) I understand the criteria. with which it is hard to argue -- except that it would be a pity to loose these well-founded alternatives to Quantum computing (which, unlike Transparallel processing, is not yet feasible) and the highly controversial Quantum mind idea. In other words, I hope for your clemency.

(ad 2) The general definition of COI is clear, but I don't see how it would apply to this particular case. That external link simply refers to anthropological information relevant to the subject. Gumum (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. Van der Helm's transparallel processing article was published in 2004. The ideas have not become notable (that is, written about in depth by people independent of the author) in the succeeding 11 years. Wikipedia is not a place to make things known. Articles here are about concepts that are already well known. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material has a whiff of crankery: I can't really understand what he is saying at all, then we come to the Example (stacking the pencils) which is mundane in the extreme (I and probably thousands of others have thought of it long ago) and hard to relate to the supposed subject. Lacking obvious notability I do not think this is WP-worthy. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in informing the general WP public about an already feasible form of classical computing with the same computing power as promised by quantum computers (I don't think that Imaginatorium or many others have thought of that). However, I acknowledge that this page relies -- too narrowly for WP -- on primary sources. I already decoupled it from other pages, and as far as I am concerned, this page can be deleted. Gumum (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: need more opinions--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability and sources. I am of the opinion that this does not pass muster. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:36, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Guinea-Bissau

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced The Banner talk 09:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails ONEEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable for 1 event. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 6 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 redirect to Corporal punishment. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physical punishment

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

Physical punishment as a separate topic from corporal punishment appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guideline (Wikipedia:Notability). I have found no reliable sources that make a distinction between the two; a search for "physical punishment" on The Free Dictionary (Legal) merely redirects to "Corporal punishment". On Wikipedia, the page Corporal punishment already describes the subject well. Physical punishment is primarily a list, with no sources cited (WP:VERIFY), and whose navigational function is already covered by the Category page Physical punishments. Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physical punishment is, however, a common term for referring to corporal punishment (judging by the pages that link to it), so maybe a redirect to Corporal punishment is a better option, per WP:SYNONYM. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much the same as corporal punishment and there are plenty of sources which use the phrase such as Physical Punishment in Childhood: The Rights of the Child; From Physical Punishment to Positive Discipline; Physical Punishment Across Generations. The page is currently being used as a navigational page to help our readers get to the various types and this seems sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: If it's much the same as corporal punishment, why is your !vote not for redirecting? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to decide whether to delete the page. This should not be done because the topic is notable. The details of how to structure the various aspects and names for the topic is a matter of ordinary editing. The title physical punishment seems well-used in the title of substantial sources and so may well be the best title for the topic. But sorting that out is beyond the scope of this discussion because AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to decide what to do with a page someone has nominated for deletion. Do you not acknowledge the many possible outcomes of AfD (as listed at WP:AFD)? Since keep and redirect are both distinct options, by choosing keep you're effectively communicating that this separate article is acceptable. I'm aware that you already know all of this, so maybe it's that you're just making a principled objection or taking a personal stand against the bringing articles to AfD that should've just been redirected to begin with, rather than issuing an evaluation of what the proper fate of the article should be when taking into consideration the various applicable policies and guidelines? I mean, I guess it's not all that big of a deal since the end result in this case is very clear, but it makes the discussion muddled when someone doesn't play by the rules we assume of one another. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this separate article is acceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the point being made is that "Physical punishment" is the better title, then that would seem to be an argument for renaming Corporal punishment and deleting or merging the existing Physical punishment list article.—Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an option. What we have here is a rather general concept — punishment of the body rather than more abstract punishments such as fines or loss of status. This covers a wide range of punishments including imprisonment and strange mortal tortures such as scaphism. But the trouble is that, by the title corporal punishment, you get a focus on flogging and beating, especially of children. The title physical punishment seems to work better as taxonomy and the page in question has a good navigational focus, helping readers to the specific aspect they are looking for. Andrew D. (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of Corporal punishment. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corporal punishment, which is exactly the same topic, and which begins "Corporal punishment or physical punishment is...". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created that wording in the lead paragraph of Corporal punishment, because numerous sources make clear that the terms are synonymous. Indeed, the page was a redirect to Corporal punishment at one point, and was then converted to the existing article, as the edit history shows. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to corporal punishment per above points. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to corporal punishment. Historically, the term "corporal punishment" has been used in legal scholarship to describe physical punishment. Black's Law Dictionary, for example, has an entry for corporal punishment, but not physical punishment. This article from the Georgetown Law Journal, this article from the University of Illinois Law Review, this article from the William Mitchell Law Review, this article from the Akron Law Review, and this article from the American University Law Review all favor the term "corporal punishment," though they occasionally use the term "physical punishment" synonymously. Other dictionaries, like the Cambridge English Dictionary, have an entry for corporal punishment, but not for physical punishment. Likewise, David M. Walker's Oxford Companion to Law has an entry for "corporal punishment," but not for "physical punishment." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is whether having a stand-alone list for navigational purposes helps more than the existing Category:Physical punishments. Lists that fill a navigational or development function are often kept regardless of notability, according to Wikipedia:Notability#Common circumstances. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:29, 1 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 redirect to First World problem. There are only two "keeps", and the one by the IP has nothing to do with our inclusion standards, so we've got consensus not to keep. We don't have consensus about whether to delete, merge or redirect, however, and where to. So that part of the outcome is officially left open, and I'm editorially redirecting to First World problem on the basis of flipping a coin. This can be changed, and any relevant content merged, through further editorial action. Sandstein 19:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of relative privation

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

Article for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Trumpetrep (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While "relative privation" seems like a recent term, it looks to me like the article was originally created with the title "Appeal to worse problems" and also describes the same concept as "whataboutery"–sense 2, as somewhat mentioned in the article's Talk page. I also believe the concept is an application of a fallacious combination of Argumentum ad misericordiam and Slippery slope (see [43]) but that's OR. Anyway, a broader sourcing search with those terms should likely turn up better support for the article's concept, although its title and lede might need some work. I should also mention that it appears "whataboutery" now redirects to "whataboutism", which is correct for sense 1 of this wiktionary entry but not sense 2, which is the one equivalent to "relative privation" and which has a cite there of a use in 1984. Metadox (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Most, if not all, of the Google hits are blogs, forum posts, user comments, and Wikipedia mirrors. I've certainly come across this personally, but I don't think reliable sources use either "relative privation" or "appeal to bigger problems" to describe it, which means this fails WP:NEO. It could be redirected somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. Whataboutism or First World problem seem decent choices. This belongs on RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. Once it gets coverage in reliable sources, we can write an article about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Delete and Redirect to Whataboutism. This is a variant of "First World problems," ~~and a quick google search reveals several useful sources, like this and this~~. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: You should check the publisher when you quote sources from Google Books. Both of those sources that you provided are from self-published vanity presses, and they are completely unusable. Lulu.com even has an article on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate I stand corrected. It was sloppy research on my part to not check the publisher of those books; mea culpa. I did a fairly exhaustive search and I found some reliable sources that use the term (see, e.g., this Huffington Post article), but upon further reflection, it looks like there is a good chance those sources borrowed the definition form the Wikipedia article. I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of fallacies, where it is already mentioned (and, as far as I can tell, would be a fine home for it as it contains many other fallacies for which we do not have stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An rare case when I believe that the third relist is aproppriate--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR as this is not a matter of logic, it's a value judgement. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP:

I have needed this link countless times to dispel the appeal to bigger problems informal fallacy which is often waved about as a valid argument. I have seen this page referenced itself many a time on multiple discussion platforms (including Facebook).

If there is a public need and the page is being used, why delete it?

Somebody raised the issue of not all informal fallacies having their own page - perhaps this should be rectified so that they all do. Alternatively, perhaps they are not as commonly searched for or used, in which case there is no demand for individual pages.

This fallacy is completely valid as no one person has to care about one problem or the other in a mutually exclusive way. There is also the point that a worse problem of some kind will always exist at any moment in time. This does not mean we have the resources, power or singular directive to solely focus on this "one" issue over all others. All perceived problems should be considered of equal value of discussion.

86.175.78.64 (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Moved from the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor: link this page instead. It's from RationalWiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 5 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 merge to inMusic Brands. I had relisted this, but since the nom also suggests a merge as an option, closing as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numark Industries

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

This is a product catalogue, a brochure. All it lacks is a price list. Two valid outcomes present themselves:

Merge to InMusic Brands, the parent company, with any salvageable information
Delete

As it stands either outcome is acceptable, assuming InMusic Brands to be inherently notable. I have not checked that. Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks Timtrent for nominating even though I had some plans about this article myself. I think Merge would be best as I'm actually familiar with this area and know the name well but as my searches have shown, there's no considerably better coverage thus no better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Yeah I'm with SwisterTwister on this - I suspect there's a decent article to be made about Numark but I'm struggling for sources, and the InMusic Brands one needs some more info as that's just a list of its subsidiaries. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 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. Sandstein 09:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Institute, low vision and blind rehabilitation "Josefina C. Bignone"

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

No indication that this organisation is notable, as demonstrated by a search for the Spanish-language name. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking with some other search options, it is apparent that the institute is rarely referred to with it's full and official name. But again, I'm not fluent enough in Spanish to see if the mentions or sources are good enough. w.carter-Talk 10:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since no one else seemed to pay it much attention, I did what search I could and added some refs and facts to the article. It has served a great number of patients for fourteen years and it has been mentioned on the websites of an Argentinian newspaper, the socialist party, the municipality and by government representatives. w.carter-Talk 23:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And if kept, I suggest the article be moved to "Josefina C. Bignone Eye Institute" since the present title is a remnant from the first rather bad translation. w.carter-Talk 09:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure basically but perhaps keep as I speak Spanish so I would certainly be able to view the sources but either way, this seems acceptable perhaps for now. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified where he has familiar input and I also believe he may have some beneficial input. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "mentions" is the word for it. The newspaper article is usable towards notability-- the other two are mere mentions. No evidence of any particular importance in the city. We wouldn't hesitate to remove this if it were in the US. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my experience, too. I found lots of mentions, but nothing much that looked like significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can find some spanish speakers who can give a better evaluation of the available sources -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 21 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. The additional time did not hurt, work on article has brought a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dživo Frana Sorkočević

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

See article talk page, concerns this individual does not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I previously did a Google Books search and found very little. I also now checked Croatian sites in general, and found practically nothing (a lot of false positives). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I finally found the correct name for the person, establishing notability wasn't so hard - they have an entry in the Croatian Encyclopedia at Sorkočević, Ivan Franatica. Keep --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical figure. From what is said here, I assume there will be other references--such as the ones in the paper listed as the source. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should mention that also had I tried to search for that paper, but couldn't find it. Sadly the journal's website only verifies the existence of the paper [44], there's no content. It's somewhat intriguing that they list the title as u prepjevu Franatice Sorkočevića, which is locative, and sounds like the proper name of the topic would be Franatica Sorkočević instead. And then I did a Google Books search for that name and 1701, and voila, [45] - it looks like the name used in our article could be a mistake, which is why it was so unverifiable. *facepalm* Now, that still doesn't obviate the need to investigate whether this new name is actually notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by all means as this historical subject would certainly have better sourcing somewhere, certainly not a deletion priority yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this was closed very soon after the last two comments, I took the liberty to undo it because I don't consider that proper procedure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned on my talk page, I won't contest this, but I will note that two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This page has been moved during the deletion discussion and is now at Franatica Sorkočević. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of this is clearly demonstrated by the sources found by User:Joy; which makes me wonder why this is still open. I was going to close it as "keep" myself, because a) the nom is the only delete !vote, and b) the lack of notability arguments seemed to have been based on confusions about the name. Then I noticed the contested close. Anyhow, consensus is IMO pretty clear here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly sourced. Hardly any got links from other articles to it. Only trivial mentions of this person in articles of the wikis where you might expect a full article of him (like the Italian Wiki). Huge improvements might save the article, but I don’t mind if it disappears. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: if someone inserts this as a source, ~~I'll withdraw my delete-vote too~~ .After comparing the two, and seeing striking similarities, I might say we got a copyright-issue here. See WP:COPYVIO.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my delete vote (nom). This has been a bit of a mess. I think the initial closure was incorrect or at least gave impressions of unfairness, but reopening without consulting the closing admin at first also isn't best practice. In any case, I think anyone with an entry at the Croatian Encyclopedia is notable and it seems sourcing in general is much easier now the subject's common name has been found, so I'm changing my vote to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 21 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Lang (supercentenarian) (2nd nomination)

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. If anyone would like to contest this deletion please post on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Haddad

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

Seemingly questionable notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing at all so unless there's some archived French coverage, there's nothing to suggest keeping this. Notifying Wikimandia who lists to be notified for French insight, as there are no other past contributors or taggers and it's worth noting the author's name was "Laswalidas". SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Paul Wagner

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

Seems to fail WP:NN for WP:BLP, most of the sources are from youtube and the articles are not notable sources. Jab843 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were added DON'T DELETE Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails our notability guideline for artists. No major museum exhibits, no significant coverage by regional or national publications, or respected art journals, or reliable books about art history. The sources are either unreliable, or passing mentions, or predictable local coverage: "A local college student is painting a mural at the local YMCA". Not a notable artist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough here to make an article within guidelines. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:32, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pretty pointless disambiguation page because nobody is commonly referred to as "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" and as such it is an implausible search term. This was previously deleted in a September 2014 RFD where consensus favored deletion over disambiguation, but it was disambiguated anyway in February. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: might make sense if there was a role assigned to the "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" (to carry a bunch of flowers at state opening of parliament, that sort of thing)... but there isn't. Unlikely search term, unnecessary dab page. PamD 09:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is how the current eldest child was known before being born - see Prince William and Kate’s baby becomes first person to get Wikipedia page before being born.

The page was there for some time and there are external links to it. We should not dump our visitors in limbo, when we can have a perfectly good disambiguation page.

The term is also widely used, there are hundreds of uses in the press, even Kensington Palace used it in Media pack for the birth of the first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

In fact the page itself probably passes GNG.

Signpost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This is because the Prince George of Cambridge article was named this before he was born as a placeholder. This isn't an official title or this could be a plausible disambiguation. I'd compare this to the "Untitled project" redirects that are routinely deleted at RFD. Any incoming links can be piped to the Prince George article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to pipe or redirect it anywhere, it should be to either Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children or Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Fatherhood, and not to one or other of the two current offspring. PamD 11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it redirected anywhere. I'm talking about piping the old Signpost link that Rich posted. It is clearly referring to Prince George but it was back when the article was at Child of the Duke... By piping that link to Prince George, you preserve that original name in the Signpost while linking to where it's supposed to go. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Truly pointless. It refers neither to an individual nor to a role/position of some sort. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note page gets around 100 hits per month. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a Google search term, not a disambiguation title. Anyone looking for their children's names would use one of the parents' articles or Google. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Boleyn Are you aware that there are incoming links from outside Wikipedia to this page? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA-LP

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

Station was only on paper and was never launched (ie: took to the airwaves). As such, the station (and by extension this article), does not enjoy the notability that other radio station articles do under GNG, NMEDIA and consensus. Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination as well. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can imagine a "special case" scenario where a station which was licensed, but never actually launched and thus had its license expire unbuilt, might still get over WP:GNG for something (e.g. it was at the core of a massive controversy about the licensing), but no evidence has been shown that this would be the case here — and radio stations that never actually broadcast at all do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah, this is one of those special cases. Page was created before the station was launched, so it didn't meet NMEDIA and GNG. Dravecky and Mlaffs have nom'd a couple paper-only stations before. That's why when a station is launched, we don't create the page for it until that day. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 11 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. Uskok debuted during the course of the AfD, and there is general consensus that he now meets notability requirements. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Uskok

(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) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has not played senior football yet, but I'd keep it so it can be easily restored as I feel he'll debut for CC Mariners sooner rather than later --SuperJew (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I said he'd debut sooner rather than later :) --SuperJew (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Central Coast Mariners FC, since he has been signed to a fully professional club and may make a debut in the near future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I agree it should be a keep now that he has debuted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He debuted tonight. Brigate Rossonere (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. I have updated the article with refs to indicate. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has now played in a WP:FPL so now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTBALL made his debut in a WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:27, 5 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 merge all to Fender Jazz Bass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Geddy Lee Jazz Bass

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

Non-notable issues of an arguably notable commercial product. These artist-endorsed versions are production models with slightly different options and features, endorsed by celebrity musicians for commercial recognition. Substantial and adequate references aren't available to demonstrate the notability of the products.

I'm also nominating these articles for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all three to Fender Jazz Bass. These are just signature models of the Jazz Bass and should be covered in that article's already existent "Signature models" section. IF the merge is limited to well-sourced info this should not overwhelm the article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I am not seeing the coverage necessary for a standalone article, nor are size issues significant enough to require a split. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above editors. Not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant standalone articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 21 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. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film

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

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 5 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. No prejudice against recreation when the time comes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships

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

WP:TOOSOON, date not sure, eight month from now, and not GS. 333 -blue 03:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls under WP:Crystal this should be created only when there is more information available. We don't want misinformation. Jab843 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Crystal SOAD KoRn (talk) 00:48, 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) sst✈^(discuss) 09:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Heap

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

Move to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weak_Heap. 333 -blue 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GabeIglesia (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dictionaries have nothing to do with this. It is a poor article on an obscure algorithmic and data structuring technique. The main heap article has eighteen sub-types of heap linked from it: this is one. Twenty seven in the category. It needs improvement, not deletion. It certainly didn't benefit from AfDing it within an hour of its creation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article. As the subject of multiple nontrivial independent research articles (with double-digit citations) as well as a secondary source (quite rightly chosen as the main source by the article creator) it clearly passes WP:GNG. As for NOTDICT, it is being badly abused here by both the nominator and GabeIglesia. That guideline is about not having articles about words and their definitions, but should say nothing about having articles about abstract concepts that happen to include definitions of those concepts. Or otherwise, how could we have articles about anything mathematical at all? We miight as well give up and be the encyclopedia of celebrities, sportspeople, and film stars. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Apologies if I came across as abusive. I spoke too soon, when the article was much different and looked like a singular definition (admittedly for something I didn't know and should've left to an expert smarter than me). I retract my support for a Delete. The article is in good shape. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], etc. Also keep per WP:HEY; the article has been significantly expanded by David Eppstein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

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 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lewis Dear

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

May qualify for A7. We already have an article on the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, an article on the shooter is inappropriate and unwarranted - especially so early after the incident. WP:1E applies, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to original - It was once a simple, appropriate redirect article. As much as I would like a Perpetrator section in the main article, a separate article on the suspect himself does sound too premature. For now, he's no Dylann Roof. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect and salt as redirect Fails WP:BLP1E. I declined CSD A7 as inapplicable. A mere ASSERTION of notability is all that is needed to overcome CSD A7 and the article makes a credible assertion of notability. But again, actual notability fails under WP:BLP1E. Let the AfD run its course. Safiel (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per WP:BLP1E. He has done nothing else in his life to demonstrate notability. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. I agree that this is premature, it an be undone if warranted later on. Observer31 (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E. -- Callinus (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, as long as the picture is actually public domain. This guy is notable for a single event and information regarding him is valid in the context of that article, but DOES NOT warrant it's own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Moving to Delete and Redirect as the 'almost' edit-war about the perpetrator over on the Shooting page is done for now, and there is now a perpetrator section which has basically the same information.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh. Now it's in the investigation section. Current events get too many people fighting over them. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. This guy is notable for a single event and information regarding him is valid only in the context of that article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave redirect per above, WP:BLP1E, and the WP:UNDUE concept. — Ched : ? 17:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Once the media covers his trial, he'll be notable for two events. If he's guilty, and they cover his incarceration, that'll be three. But for now, there's not much to be said about him, independent of the shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge or redirect - Robert Dear is a pivotal figure with respect to the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, and if the article is not kept, his name should at least redirect to that article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, because WP:1EVENT. epic genius (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per 1EVENT Delta13C (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Quis separabit? 23:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Delet Sstting the event the subject of the article was involved in this individual is not notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BLP1E, and WP:TROUT the article creator. Eclipsoid (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per 1E. Close as Snowball. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. Basileias (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but leave redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. There is currently nothing significant enough in this article to warrant a merge. Relevant info about the suspect can be appropriately added to the main article in the suspect section, via normal editing practices and through established policies/guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but leave as a Redirect—nothing at all notable for this person other than WP:ONEEVENT. This does not constitute censorship, as description of the alleged perpetrator, subsequent court events, and ultimate resolution of the case can all be covered in the main article for the event. N2e (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but leave redirect since there's nothing really warranting merging. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per WP:1E. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E Bad Dryer (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Redirect before it becomes a coatrack of garbage. Other name variations redirect to the shooting. This odd article does not. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Redirect - I think it's fair to say there's a consensus established above. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. NickCT (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, which will hopefully get a more reasonable name since there is more than one(!). DreamGuy (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Deletion of the article is completely unnecessary. The article will grow in information as the trial proceeds. Robert Dear is an important enough person to have an article separate from the shooting. If Mohamed Atta gets to have his own article, there's no reason for Dear to not have his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.48.67 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - under WP:BLP1E. If there is some lasting importance to him, now is not the time that we'll see it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any snow close Enough of a dispute between those who want a merge and those that want a redirect without a merge to warrant leaving this open 3 more days. We are already 4 days into this AfD, so 3 more days won't hurt. Safiel (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Safiel: - I'm not sure the anyone is opposing a redirect. NickCT (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: - Well, there clearly is a consensus for leaving a redirect, but there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether to merge the content or simply kill the content and redirect without merging. In any event, only 2 days left until eligible for normal close. No reason to close earlier. There is a snow consensus for redirect, but not in regards to the merge issue, thus a snow close is not indicated in this situation. Safiel (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Safiel: - re "simply kill the content and redirect without merging" - I'm not sure that's right. I don't think the people voting "redirect" are necessarily opposed to the "merge & redirect" position. There's a little ambiguity between between what a "Merge" and what a "Redirect" is. I'm inclined to think that unless someone explicitly states they're opposed to one of those, then they're probably OK with both. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Merge and redirect will, for the most part, have about the same effect. Dear's name is already mentioned in the "2015 Colorado Springs shooting" article, so it is only a matter of how much information about him will be written in that article. This can be discussed on the talk page for that article, or simply added at will without violating WP:UNDUE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: - Yes. The difference between Redirect/Merge is really a discussion for that article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - With that being said, I am willing to let this discussion continue until December 6. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677: I'm quite confused by your comment "I am willing to let this discussion continue until December 6". You are the one deciding how long this AfD discussion will remain open? Since when and by whose authority? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I do not object to this discussion continuing until December 6. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better and more appropriate (as well as accurate). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per WP:ONEEVENT. Any notable information about him should be noted in that article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per WP:BLP1E and its usefulness as a search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 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. Consensus exists that the topic meets WP:NONPROFIT. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside In (organization)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. No sources indicate the prominence of the group, as there is no mention in independent media or other notable/reliable sources. Delta13C (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found no better sources other than some local news articles thus not much better improvement yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having trouble figuring out why the nom says there is no mention in independent media or other reliable sources as I have come up with dozens of mentions, many of them substantive and not just passing mentions. And "some local news articles" includes many articles in The Oregonian which is a statewide paper and thus regional and not just local, as well as Willamette Week, the Portland Tribune, Portland Monthly, etc. I think the organization's name may have been a rather difficult search term to use to do WP:BEFORE but with a bit of extra work there are many citations to be found, including several scholarly citations. Anyway, I've begun to expand the article, please take a look now. I will continue to expand the article so that I feel it will pass WP:NONPROFIT. If you take a look at the sources available in the now-modified search template above it may help. Valfontis (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valfontis has greatly improved the article and well demonstrated that the topic is notable. A few days ago I did some searches and found plenty of needle exchange coverage, but didn't find the other "firsts" and "bests", but I was too lazy to comment at the time. —EncMstr (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back in 1989, the needle exchange controversy was picked up by the AP and made the national news. I haven't had a chance to distill that down yet. Valfontis (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I was looking for information on this organization and Wikipedia was the only place with a comprehensive history and details about what this organization provides. This article is well-within Wikipedia's guidelines and provides and important information about one of the West Coast's most notable non-profit youth homelessness organizations. Jkfp2004 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I plan to expand the article further, but I want to register my keep before this is closed on the grounds that this organization clearly passes WP:NONPROFIT in that coverage of it can be found in "in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". Lack of citations in the article is not a criterion for deletion, when there are sources available, and though there is more coverage that could be added, I believe the article as it stands shows there is sufficient independent coverage (including books, magazines, newspapers, and research papers) and to pass a minimum standard of notability. I'd invite @Delta13C: to reevaluate the supposed lack of mentions in independent media. I'm also having trouble finding a guideline that says local sources (noting that the organization is located in the largest metro area in the state and one of the three largest metros in the region, so when we're talking "local" that doesn't mean it's a place like, say Greenhorn) are not reliable sources. In any case, the organization, as cited in the article, is notable as one of the first free clinics on the west coast, as a pioneer in needle exchange programs, and as a pioneer in naloxone dispensing legislation. Valfontis (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include: [46], [47] (scroll down), [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. Also keep per WP:HEY; the article has been significantly expanded by Valfontis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhuti Dharmananda

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

Subject does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Sources are not reliable, and subject has received no mention in independent media. Delta13C (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't any reliable sources included here and notability has not been demonstrated against WP:GNG. A lot of the article seems to have a focus on the Institute for Traditional Medicine, rather than Dharmananda himself. Many of the references that have been drawn upon for this article are from ITM's own website. WP:GNG.

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 as G11 (Non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patients Out of Time

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

Article is promotional and does not exhibit notability based on its sources. Thus, it fails WP:ORG. Delta13C (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 as I wasn't sure whether or not to as Books and browsers only found some links but nothing convincingly better so I'll see if the G11 goes through. WP:TNT at best if ever better, SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 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 as G11 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bastyr Dispensary

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Based on the sources in article, there is little coverage of the dispensary. Delta13C (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 as this seems applicable enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Winston

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

Subject does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Sources are non-reliable and not notable, and subject has not received any significant attention in independent media or made notable accomplishments. Delta13C (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of this herbalist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just went through the "sources" on the article. None are really reliable or independent. They are mostly small websites by small groups he's involved in. The groups don't seem notable, so it's not really notable that he co-founded them. Much of the text is promotional, and I had to cut some "sources" that don't even mention him, but are rather things like adult-education listings where anyone can teach a course. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:03, 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 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vesanto Melina

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Sources claim she is co-author of a nutrition research article and ADA nutritional guideline position paper. This does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Subject does not have any significant coverage in media or online. Delta13C (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing considerably better than a few several passing mentions, nothing for a better notable article yet. Notifying Tokyogirl79, DGG and LaMona who frequently participate at these authors AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but rewrite. She's notable as an author, but the article is promotional. WorldCat shows 1215 libraries for Becoming vegan : the complete guide to adopting a healthy plant-based diet . Even for this area, this is a very high count, and there are undoubtedly reviews. I do some rewriting tonight. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda McQuade Crawford

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

Article fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Sources are all weak online business websites that are affiliated with subject. Delta13C (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for coverage of this herbalist in reliable sources uncovered only promotional backscratching in fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, mainly promo. Long bibliography seems to mostly be web ephemera with some dead links. Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find the independent sources in the midst of the promotional language. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:10, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. N. Sadasivan

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

This is an article for a non-notable personality with fringe views that are not scholarly. There are also no references. With the limited information I found about this author, according to many of the reviews on google books [56] on his book A Social History of India, he has biased and political motives. Xtremedood (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Random negative user generated reviews on Google Books are useless for determining the notability of a topic. We keep articles on notable topics, and do not delete articles because a handful of anonymous Google reviewers do not like a book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, however, I just pointed that due to the fact that there is not much stated about the author. Take it as a grain of salt. The primary reason to delete is due to lack of notability and academic sources. Xtremedood (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why the page creator was not notified while nominating for AFD?The Avengers 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary coverage that I can find. I would even have PRODed this. @Sitush: you've edited this thing, I see; thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is our guideline for academics. I'm sure we can at least verify that he wrote the various books. I agree that his A Social History of India is a completely unreliable source but history wasn't his specialism and he wrote other books on matters that were. I'd like to see the article deleted but I think the sticklers for our rather silly specialist notability guidelines would have a fit. With no evidence that he held a named chair, no evidence that he is widely cited etc, and a reasonably high chance that his professorship would not have happened if he was anywhere other than in the sometimes corrupt/nepotistic etc Indian education system, perhaps I'll get my way. It has been around for a long time without decent sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Steenblock

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Sources are Quackwatch, which is a reliable source, but not enough to satisfy prominent and independent coverage needed for BLP. Article also seems to be a resumé and self-promotional despite sources cited that are critical. Delta13C (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I only found some links at Books, browsers, Highbeam and Scholar but nothing surprisingly better. The article is not entirely acceptable as it could better (especially making the solid independently more firmer) and I'm simply not seeing that. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified of academics subjects and may have some more insight about this familiar area. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable. He's not an academic. He's a physician who has written some non notable popular books. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 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. sufficient unopposed consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Isaacson

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

The article is written in a self-promotional tone and appears more like a resumé than a reference article. Sources for this article are of unknown quality, since they are not completed bibliographic entries and do not contain URLs. They seem non-notable and non-reliable. Thus, article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even as incomplete references lacking the title and publication date of the source content, it's still evident that six of the eight "sources" are to local community weekly newspapers which are not widely distributed (or widely archived) enough to satisfy WP:GNG, while the other two are to her own books and thus get clobbered as primary sources. While the overall tone isn't as blatantly advertorial as I would have expected in something like this, it still pretty obviously tilts in a PR/advertorial direction — there's just too damn much entirely unsourced "personal life" detail of the type that, given the paucity of actual WP:RS coverage, could only be collated by knowing, or at least directly interviewing, the subject personally. Strictly speaking, the fact that there aren't convenience URLs present in the references isn't relevant, because we are allowed to cite stuff to print-only content like old newspaper articles or books, but the fact that they're local community weekly newspapers (as well as incomplete references that are still missing necessary details) does weaken them. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regrettably, sources for this post-modern nutritionist are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat -- I'm not bothered that there are not online citations; I'm bothered that even in her self-promotional Emily Isaacson Institute website and her many blogs on so many subjects she hasn't found better citations. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:52, 14 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony O'Donnell (doctor)

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

Subject is a non-notable naturopath. Article cites two sources which are completely unreliable: one is a broken link and another a self-published source. Thus, article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 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} 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Meschino

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

Not notable based on cited references, therefore fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Subject is an alt-med practitioner who wrote books and seems to have self-promoted through junket strategies. Delta13C (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically WP:PROMO. Sources are mostly pamphlets and promotional web ephemera. Subject has written numerous books, but WolrdCat shows holdings in just the double digits...barely a blip for the "self-help" mass market publishing sector. External links and some of the "sources" promote his private practice and book sales. Uncontroversial delete. I wish there would be an organized effort to systematically cull this kind of WP:PROMO cruft. Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- Agricola44 said it perfectly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:42, 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young European of the Year

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

Notability unclear. Most sources I've seen are either primary, not reliable, or just looking for nominations for this award. I also see no claim of significance. Was tagged CSD A7, but this is clearly outside A7's scope. Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:37, 22 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! 02:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 6 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. Sandstein 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shigehto Yumi

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

(Coped from Talk:Shigehto Yumi)

This article is largely unsourced claptrap. There is something in Japanese called a shigedō no yumi (with shigedō spelled variously in kanji as wikt:重籐, wikt:滋籐, or wikt:繁籐), but there's nothing called a shigehto yumi, nor the more-standard Hepburn romanization possibilities of shigeito yumi or shigeto yumi.

An anonymous user discussed this with me over on Wiktionary a while back; I suspect this anon (using a series of anonymous IP addresses) is the same person as User:Mare-Silverus. See wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for that thread.

I don't think the shigedō no yumi meets the Wikipedia requirement for notability. I see too that the Japanese Wikipedia has no article at ja:重籐, with the main mentions occurring in subsections of the ja:弓 (武器) (Bow (weapon)) and ja:和弓 (Yumi or traditional Japanese bow) articles.

I'm nominating this article for deletion. If it survives the review process, the article is in need of 1) moving to a more-standard spelling (I suggest just Shigedō, or possibly Shigedō no yumi or Shigedō bow), and 2) complete rewriting. See wikt:重籐 and wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for some reference. The two bows on the left of this image are two different styles of shigedō bow.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks mostly like fancruft to me. The bow has appeared in a number of games and manga/anime such as Nobunaga no Yabo[57], Final Fantasy 11[58], Samurai of Legend[59], and Naruto[60]. The only source that doesn't look like fancruft is this page from a European kyudo organization. The Wiki article looks like a copypaste of this. I doubt it is an RS, however.Michitaro (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That European kyudo organization's page appears to be the same content as the now-defunct http://www.zenko.org/bows.htm/ page that the anon indicated as their source in the thread on my Wiktionary Talk page. This content is not backed up by much, from what I could find poking around the Japanese internet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:30, 23 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! 02:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NN and Redirect its redirects to Yumi.

There are a few book sources with "shigeto no yumi", etc, however all appear to indicate that the bow is rattan bound rather than purple leather.
The Shigeto as a type of bow is mentioned three times (with three different wielder) in the fourteenth century The Tale of the Heike (ie: well before Nobanuga) including:

In his quiver were twenty four arrows barred with black on their white feathers, not to speak of the special arrow, feathered with a hawk's wing, always carried by the Imperial Guard of the Takiguchi. His bow was a 'shigeto' of black lacquer with red binding.

There's a picture of the Shigeto no Yumi here
The Shigeto is mentioned at the Japanese page for kubi jikken as part of the costume for the ceremony, and this throws up a few hits on Google Books.

... but there's nothing that suggests there's sufficient to make an article of its own. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find shigeto, only shigedō. I do see a few stray instances of 重藤, which presumably might be read as shigeto, but that appears to be a misspelling of 重籐 -- note the difference in radical on the second character, 艹 (from 艸) for the former, and 竹 for the latter. The 藤 in the former spelling means wisteria, which is clearly out of place in this context, while the 籐 in the latter spelling means rattan, which is appropriate for the bows. The latter spelling is the only one I'm finding in dictionary resources, such as Daijisen here or Daijirin here, among others, which all list the reading as shigedō. I only find shigeto in English resources, which strike me as less reliable on the whole.

(Naturally, all of this may be moot if no article is forthcoming.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You're the translator here, and this is rather outside the parameters for the AFD but...)

There are a few reasons I can think of why this may have been romanised as shigeto:

Long "o" has often been transcribed "o" rather than "ō"/"oo"/"ou"
The word is uncommon, and likely to be found in written sources only. Since the roots are shige + tō, a translator might not identify that the "tō" might become voiced (or unvoiced unaspirated??)
-籐 as a suffix does not universally apply rendaku -- see here. Not sure how trustworthy that is in its entirety, but note that there's a number of instances of "katō" being written 加籐 (eg this.
Given the age of the word, it's possible that "-to" rather than "-do" was deliberate to reflect the standard Middle-Japanese pronunciation (???).
And getting even further into the Offtopic Original Research morass: There may be a punning reason. If there were ever a purplish wrapping involved as the current article suggests, then a pronunciation suggesting wisteria might be appropriate.

Should it ever warrant an article (or even a mention in an article) it should be shigetō per WP:MOS-JA since the majority of English Language sources appear to romanise it as shigeto rather than anything else. A search in Google books for '"shige-X" bow OR yumi' has 3 hits for -dō, 24 for -tō, 1 for -dou, 7 for -tou, 18 for -do, and ~~489~~ for -to ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. I'm curious, how did you run your search? I compare Google Books searches for "shigedo bow" OR "shigedō bow" OR "shigedo yumi" OR "shigedō yumi" and for "shigeto bow" OR "shigetō bow" OR "shigeto yumi" OR "shigetō yumi", and I get different numbers -- 5 books show up as hits for the "d" spelling, and a purported 74 (collapsing to just 22 when paging through) for the "t" spelling.

FWIW, rendaku is more common when the preceding morpheme has two morae, so a reading of katō for 加籐 is expected, while kadō would be odd. I also did find a Japanese resource that specifically mentions the "t" reading, but as an alternative: this entry in Daijisen.

If an article is deemed appropriate, I'm fine with WP:MOS-JA, provided that the article mentions that the Japanese reading more commonly uses the "d". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's instances where the words are not adjacent, for example here where 2 out 3 hits are for Ni(t)chō no Yumi Chigusa no Shigedō. Apologies, however: I missed that Shigeto throws up a lot of false positives ("Shigeto" as a name, homonyms of "bow", Google's random count...) so true figure would be closer to 48 than 480... ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The title is plainly wrong, since 'eht' cannot occur in standard romanisation as specified for WP. The whole article is dubious, and it is better deleted; it is not our job to hunt for nuggets of truth among the confusion. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:45, 12 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 merge to Sylvan (disambiguation). Sandstein 18:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan

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

IMHO, this is a dictionary entry, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The content may be transferred to Wiktionary or possibly (fully or partly) included in Sylvan (disambiguation). PanchoS (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with Sylvan (disambiguation). Not enough here for a standalone article. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:51, 25 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! 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as per above. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 05:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 6 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 and redirect to A.J. Allmendinger#Personal life, redirects are indeed cheap--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Kushnirenko

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

Subject does not appear to be notable, and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Article mentions non-notable achievements, such as winning small-time beauty contests and graduating from chiropractic school. She was married to a notable NASCAR driver. Delta13C (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, reasons as per nominator. Essentially, hot girl, pretty face, famous for marrying (then divorcing) an athlete, not much to the story. My Canadian news sweeps did not turn up enough to merit inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by the references, her main importance is as the wife of an important athlete, and that's not sufficient, per NOTINHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete as mentioned by all above, searches found only passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much for an outstandingly better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A.J. Allmendinger#Personal life as, being mentioned there, it's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 20 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. Mergers can continue to be discussed. Sandstein 18:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoko (doll)

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

(Copied from Talk:Hoko (doll)#Bogus)

I cannot find anything in Japanese about this supposed doll. The spelling wikt:歩子 does exist in Japanese, but only as a female given name, most commonly read as Ayuko. The reading hoko also exists in Japanese, but only for the spelling wikt:矛, which means spear, halberd. The corresponding Japanese article for the reading at ja:ほこ does not list 歩子, and the article for the spelling at ja:歩子 does not exist. I cannot find this term in any Japanese dictionary; see also http://www.weblio.jp/content/歩子 for the spelling (no entry exists), http://www.weblio.jp/content/ほこ for the reading (no 歩子 anywhere on that page). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any evidence either. It is up to the OP to provide some hints as to where this came from. Move any useful content into Japanese traditional dolls Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is obviously a mistake, since it should be 這子 (ほうこ) or Hōko. That term and doll in fact exists: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], etc. In English: [67], [68], [69], [70], etc. I can't judge yet whether this is enough to create a separate article, but it is definitely not bogus. Michitaro (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have corrected the kanji in the article since that mistake should not be allowed to remain even as the article is subject to an AfD review. Michitaro (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Michitaro. I was not familiar with this custom, and with both the anon's reading and spelling incorrect, I didn't find anything relevant. Now that I have something to go on, I note by way of comparison that the JA Wikipedia does not have a separate article at ja:這子, and that it only appears in eleven other articles when searching for the string, of which three appear to be in titles listed as article references. After reading around a bit, I'm not sure if this passes muster for notability purposes; I defer to others' judgment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the JA Wiki has it or not is one issue to consider, but in the end, each wiki makes up its own mind. I would need to research it some more to see if I think it deserves its own article, but my initial reaction is that an article combining amagatsu (天児) and hōko makes the most sense if there is to be an article. Michitaro (talk) 02:20, 24 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! 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient evidence that we have enough reliably sourced information to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Hōko (doll) I have to completely disagree with DAJF. Not only did Michitaro provide excellent information, but my own searches have turned up more. I'm going to expand the article today. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found this article on JSTOR, but I don't have full access. Hoko dolls are discussed on several pages of the article. [71] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to JSTOR and unfortunately that article is discussing another kind of hoko, a kind of float used in the Gion Festival. Michitaro (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. Thanks for looking Michitaro. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not left as individual articles, it might be less awkward to expand Japanese traditional dolls rather than to try to combine them under a forced name given that they are linked in one period but separate later (and both hōko and amagatsu should appear there regardless). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (very much so). I think the desperate desire to preserve any entry which is not completely wrong leads to huge numbers of really scrappy and disconnected not-really-articles. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and "Hoko (doll)", even corrected to "Hōko (doll)" is not a reader-friendly title in an English language work. I looked at Japanese traditional dolls, and though this really isn't my subject, I think the first sentence is "all wrong". Japanese dolls are known by all sorts of names (as the article shows), and 人形 means "doll" or "figurine", not "human shape". I can't really see that writing the Japanese generic term for "doll" is even necessary or helpful. Whereas obscure words like dogū might benefit not only from consistent romanisation but also a kanji "reverse gloss". Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 12 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 redirect to Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. And merge to the extent desired and appropriate. Sandstein 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Piazza

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

This article is almost entirely sourced from articles from a publication called Front Sight that the subject founded. Many of the articles cited in WP article are written by the subject. There is no indication that the subject is notable. Therefore, article fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Delta13C (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is somewhat slanted and not well written, the subject matter is notable, a cursory glance on google and google news reveals a number of articles from various news sources. Jab843 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search and found a few sources, but they do not cover the subject in depth. They seem to only quote him as a person with a known stance on pro-gun point of view, especially after a shooting: [72], plus this is the exact same text [73], [74], [75]. I cannot find any sources that cover subject in depth. Delta13C (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FrontSight Institute' or also simply delete as there's quite considerable coverage but it may currently be best to move it to the institute's article for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to FrontSight Institute. Horrid writing aside, it can be improved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and/or MERGE to FrontSight Institute. Everything in the article is directly or indirectly related to FrontSight anyway.--RAF910 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article Front Sight Firearms Training Institute may also not meet GNG for organizations (WP:ORG). It's also very problematic that the article cites low quality sources, like it own website and its facebook posts. Delta13C (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough...then we should discuss deleting the Front Sight article as well.--RAF910 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Front Sight. then discuss the combined article at afd . In most cases like this a single article is stronger; we should first construct the most sustainable article that we can, and then to see if even it is actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 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 redirect to Demon Hunter. The consensus was to either redirect or delete, with slightly more emphasis on the former. The question was, "where?" Per 3family's analysis, the best target was Demon Hunter. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Judge

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

Fails notability guidelines. Has been a member in two bands and touring musician for one other band, but only one source discusses him and all mentions of him are passing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another source where he is interviewed. And I do not believe that he is not notable. Metalworker14 (talk · contribs) 4:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Keep~~Keep or redirect - Article is decently sourced, and is beyond a stub. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the sources? They don't discuss the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input from The Cross Bearer (talk · contribs) and 3family6 (talk · contribs) active members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music. The former is very good at finding and analyzing sources. If the subject is notable, he will find sources. The latter is very balanced in his approach to AfDs. This is not canvassing since I don't expect any specific response from the editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward delete on this one. There is a smattering of brief coverage (I also found this video on Billboard, but there is no write-up), and Judge does meet criterion 6 of WP:BAND. However, there is not any significant coverage of this musician.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Walter Görlitz:, @3family6: if the article cannot be kept, they why should it not be redirected to Demon Hunter? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It could be, but I didn't think that Patrick Judge was a reasonable search term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: He is not an independently notable musician, where he has not won any significant awards in Christian music specifically or music in general. While he has been part of more than one notable band, he was only an official member of The Showdown, meaning he fails BAND criteria, with regards to being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." His article should not be redirected to Demon Hunter, rather it should go to The Showdown page.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on the Facebook and official internet sites, it seems that Judge is with Demon Hunter as permanently as permanent is. Assuming that Judge is temporary, 3 albums is only "as temporary as temporary is". --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question: Do Demon Hunter and The Showdown for that matter, declare him an official member? If they do, no problem, then lets Keep; however, if they do not, big problem, then lets Delete. I was going on what was placed in the article by its author, where it needs sources to determine one way or the other.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply In addition to their Facebook and official internet sites, these three sources [76], [77] and [78] confirm Judge as a permanent (as permanent as permanent is) member of Demon Hunter. These four sources [79], [80], [81] and [82], in addition to their Facebook site confirm that Judge is a permanent member of The Showdown. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If he's not independently notable, to which article do we redirect? That's another reason for a delete. The only reason I would assume redirect is if it were a likely search term. The redirect should be to the article that contains the most information about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This is part of the reason why musicians in multiple notable bands have their own articles. Assuming that the article cannot be kept, then his name should probably be redirected to Demon Hunter, as he has recorded three times as many albums with Demon Hunter as he has with The Showdown. Additionally, redirects are cheap and "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:XY; it can either redirect to Demon Hunter or The Showdown. This should have been closed a week ago. sst✈^(discuss) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article for Demon Hunter indicates that Judge is a member of The Showdown and vice versa. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: General consensus to delete the article, but no consensus (yet) on which article to redirect this to sst✈^(discuss) 01:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(discuss) 01:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demon Hunter - Judge has recorded three times the material for Demon Hunter than for The Showdown, and the scant mentions of him I can find online reference his tenure in Demon Hunter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:01, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of APEC on Philippine National Economy

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

APEC in 2015 will undoubtedly be notable. This however is original research speculating about its possible impacts. APEC is sourced, the possible consequences are not. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 29 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! 01:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ref. Xeltran (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely original research, and nothing that can be merged with the main APEC 2015 article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Andrews (pornographic actor)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. ("Golden Dickie Award" was nn one-shot faux award given by retailer to promote products it sells.) No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. Deprodded by now blocked sock on claim that any award proves notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as the nominator states. All I can add is that independent searches for reliable sources found nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 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! 01:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Blake

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

I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable model, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails MODEL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 29 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! 01:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:48, 6 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Anders

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

Exactly what I said when I speedied this as there's hardly much here and the best my searches found was only this, this and this so I hardly see how this is better notable and improvable. Notifying past taggers Cornellrockey and Black Falcon and also LaMona, Tokyogirl79 and DGG who may have some authors insight. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability - Cornellrockey 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, although I found a mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 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 no consensus. Of note is that the nominator withdrew (diff), stating "(I didn't think about searching "Maris Racal", Sources aren't amazing but notability's there by a bare minimum, Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the pointer)", which was reverted by another user. However, per this initial closure, the nominator does not appear to be for deletion of the article at this time. As such, no consensus has formed herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Canedo Racal

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

I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:31, 29 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! 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes not quite A7 but surely PROD material....but as we are here, I found nothing better at all and this is basically unlikely notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - I don't bother with Prod as you wait a week and then you get some tool that removes it so thus a whole week is wasted.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Articles about the subject have been deleted in the past due to WP:TOOSOON. However, since then, she has received coverage even from sources independent of ABS-CBN (of which she is signed to). She has also have a number of acting roles, perhaps just barely enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Sources about the subject are more commonly found under just "Maris Racal" rather than variations of her real name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - @Davey2010: I have reverted your withdrawal as a delete !vote was given above. Let this run its course instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Barnes

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

Racing driver that never appeared to regularly compete in any major series, and as such has no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 29 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! 01:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why there are no other comments on this one, it required a lot of investigation...first off I looked at Notability motorsports - a driver must have been professional on at least one occasion in a major competition - then had to trawl through the numerous amateur tournaments he competed in to see if anything he competed in was professional. The article mentions two professional appearances in the GT3 European so I thought he's in, but on closer inspection the GT3 was intended for amateur drivers however some were paid, therefore my opinion is that he fails notability motorsports because the cost of the drive would largely exceed the likely paid fee. Happy to further discuss this one. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. European GT3 doesn't quite clear the bar for notability, and he doesn't seem to clear GNG otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 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 merge to Alan Minshaw. Never close in something I've !voted in but outcome's pretty bloody obvious .... so to save this being relisted and everyones time being wasted I'm closing as Merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Tweeks

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

This does not appear to meet WP:NORG, and the only coverage I could find are passing mentions in relation to its sponsorship of a motor racing team. QueenCake (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:27, 29 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! 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not enough for a separate article, merge with Alan Minshaw. Peter James (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Minshaw actually as I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to suggest keeping and I only found some passing mentions. Notifying car enthusiast Davey2010 who may also have some England input. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Alan Minshaw - Unfortunately the only thing I'm finding are all mentions, Even books contains nothing but mentions so as it's clearly non notable it seems better to merge to the founder than to outright delete. (Thanks SwisterTwister for the ping). –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alan Minshaw. Not finding enough source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Shetty

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

Per WP:BEFORE, no significant coverage of the subject found at Google News or Google Books, only passing mentions, as far as I can tell. All references in the article appear to be to yoga directories, not to reliable published sources independent of the subject. Article comes off as promotional and was created by an SPA. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 29 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! 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 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. Nobody actually, explicitly opposes the deletion. Sandstein 12:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Alvarez

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

Assertion of notability is focussed around founding Aporta - a company which itself seems unlikely to meet WP:CORP guidelines, and about which no Wikipedia article currently exists. That just leaves a handful of foreign-language weblinks, to determine whether the individual concerned is notable per WP:BIO — I don't see these as indicative of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst not directly relevant since our policies are not identical, it's worth noting that this article was originally translated from es:Aldo Alvarez – an article on the Spanish Wikipedia which was deleted today with comment Spanish: (Mantenimiento elemental: Artículo sin relevancia enciclopédica. Wikipedia NO ES un CV. Promocional / Conflictos de interés.) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left talk page messages for the two primary contributors User:WaltonFernan and User:Tikalmex inviting them to comment. I've also tagged the image File:Founders AldoAlvarez preview.jpg over on Commons as seemingly a copyright violation. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you read this message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikalmex (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UkPaolo what Aldo and the company are doing is very interesting. In fact you can check on the Compays website that they have linked all interviews and media coverage on both Aldo and Aporta https://www.aporta.org.mx/que-es-aporta/videos and https://www.aporta.org.mx/que-es-aporta/aporta-en-las-noticias . The image is part of the Company and its on their media kit for anyone to use https://www.aporta.org.mx/que-es-aporta/media-kit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikalmex (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, to be clear this deletion discussion is about the article Aldo Alvarez here on the English language Wikipedia. I apologise for any inadvertent confusion I may have added for commenting on the copyright of the image here. That has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and any discussion about it's licensing should take place there. For the record, however, the page you link to states that content is made available under a creative commons BY-NC-ND license which is not acceptable for upload to Commons (or here on Wikipedia, for that matter). Back to the subject in question, I'm not disputing whether what Aldo, or his company, are doing is interesting – what's relevant to this discussion is whether he's notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, per the guidelines at WP:BIO _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UkPaolo Hi i just want to initially clarify he is an Mexican-American, lives in NYC and went to college in the USA. The company he founded Aporta, Inc is based out of NY but operates too in Mexico per this link and the own company website https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/aporta-inc#/entity. So basically he is a living person based out of the US so having an profile in english makes sense too. Let me know if you agree with this so we can move fwd with the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikalmex (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to hold in mind that this is an encyclopedia. We're not talking about creating a "profile" for a social media site here. The important thing is whether Aldo Alvarez is sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article. I would again encourage you to read the guidelines at WP:BIO. I don't think clarification about his nationality are relevant – it is, of course, desirable for us to have English-language Wikipedia articles on sufficiently note-worthy individuals regardless of whether they themselves speak English, or live/work in an English speaking country. The important thing here is firmly meeting notability guidelines – please read them, and if you feel Alvarez meets these criteria update the article so as to fully convey this to the reader. If you don't think he meets them then I'm sorry but there's nothing to discuss – an article would not be appropriate – this isn't LinkedIn. Might I also enquire as to whether you know Alvarez personally, and if so point you additionally at the guidelines at WP:COI. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UkPaolo I think we should have the help of editors to get the issues corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikalmex (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no notability here. If an article about his company becomes notable then I guess there might be a reason for an article about him, but even that is not guaranteed. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 21 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! 01:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:28, 5 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha YM3012

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

I'm nominating a series of chips manufactured by the Yamaha Corporation. These articles fail to show the notability of these products; they're all low-level components that have been used in commercial products. While those products may be notable, these components are not and their usage does not confer notability. While some references can be found, that information and documentation is for the use of engineers; and technical documentation does not represent notability. The parts are not innovative or revolutionary in any lasting way.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom as non-notable topics failing WP:GNG with no independent sourcing. I see spec and data sheets and such, but nothing that discusses them in any meaningful way for individual encyclopedic article content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 21 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! 01:09, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S-1990

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

Non-notable commercial electronic part. Might have been used in notable products, but this component itself is not notable. Viable references aren't forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any sources to establish notability either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:15, 27 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! 01:08, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Burleson

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

Not a single reliable source, let alone the multiple, primary coverage from reliable sources that would be required to have an article. Self-published or minor press books are not notable either. It's basically a resume. Subject is minor Satanism promoter, so would need FRINGE policy coverage as well if article remains. DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a Satanism promoter, surely. That's not what the article says. Let's not make things worse, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He promotes it to fight against something that doesn't exist. What would you call it? DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is the nominator's commentary completely unnecessary and simply asking for controversy, my searches simply found nothing to suggest better yet aside from some links at News, Books and browser searches. Notifying DGG who lists to be notified of Christianity subjects. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Just stating the facts. Your added commentary is unnecessary. DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no clear notability , as author or otherwise. No major positions or awards. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Dave for commenting, I actually pinged a while ago for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayanth Munigala and it's gotten consensus if you wish to close it as such or comment either way. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article [83] from The Oklahoman is an impressive source; Chairing the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma is a big deal. Plus he is a national figure [84]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 21 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! 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We normally keep articles on bishops of major denominations. Should that be extended to the senior state officers of other denominations? If so, we should keep him. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Here [85] the Washington Post describes a blog post of his in some detail; here: [86] The Christian Century discusses a position he took; here: [] thttp://www.christianpost.com/news/backlash-over-muslim-seminary-student-sparks-emotional-apology-from-paige-patterson-at-sbc-121446/he Christian Post does; and again: [87] - all of these articles do more than quote and describe him, they discuss his position on political or theological issues at some length. And there are more. All it takes is to actually do a search and actually look at the articles that come up. People unwilling to do that should not bring articles to AFD, and should not iVote. Clearly, the page needs improvement. But equally clear is the fact that the Nom did not read the news stories cited in the article before bringing this to AFD (if he had, he could not have characterized Burleson as a "Satanism promoter" or as "fringe"). WP:TROUT to Nom. There ought, in fact, to be some stronger reprimand to Nom for bringing this article to AFD with that degree of inaccurate characterization. TROUT also to SisterTwister for her assertion that she ran searches and "found nothing". It is time to close this AFD that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED with a KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9]. Pinging discussion participants to review the sources I have provided above @DreamGuy, SwisterTwister, DGG, E.M.Gregory, and Peterkingiron:. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Southern Baptists press for uniformity". Reading Eagle. January 21, 2006.
^ "Southern Baptists fight each other, after defeating liberals". The Tuscaloosa News. January 21, 2006.
^ "Pastor's blog spurs board's ouster request". NewsOK.com.
^ "'Man of grace' rises from crowd to head Baptists". NewsOK.com.
^ "Blogger Burleson resigns from International Mission Board". The Baptist Standard.
^ "Pastor renews call for database of clergy sex abuse". The Christian Century.
^ "Censured Southern Baptist Critic Resigns". ChristianityToday.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ "Denomination's image may become kinder... but no less conservative". Kentucky New Era. June 16, 2006.
^ "Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary admits its first Muslim student". Washington Post. 19 May 2014.

Hmm, I'm not sure so I'll wait to see what the others say. BTW, somehow (and this has happened with other pings), I never got this one and only noticed it because I watchlisted this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of multiple RS coverage found and listed above. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 6 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 redirect to WeTab. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neofonie

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

Deleted as unimportant in the deWP at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._Dezember_2008#Neofonie_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29. That, of course, was before the developments after 2008. It was also meentioned at that discussion that perhaps the material should go with the founder and developed of the company, whose article on enWP is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen.

I have no firm opinion but they both need to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this seems simple with the best my searches finding only this, this, this and this. I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab. Unfortunately the article has never changed from its current promotional and non-notable state and I think even tagger Mean as custard would agree, and I see no chances of making the article better. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 21 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! 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering this has gotten to a second relist, I'm notifying MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who have asked me to notify them of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WeTab (with the history preserved under the redirect). The sources mentioning Neofonie that I reviewed were primarily about WeTab. I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that it can be undone if the company receives substantial coverage in the future. I agree with SwisterTwister: "I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab." Cunard (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 11 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 speedy keep. The nominator does not provide a valid rationale for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales), and no delete !votes are present in the discussion. Provision of a link to an entire content guideline page is present in the nomination (WP:EPISODE), but a deletion rationale is not provided by the nominator relative to content at the guideline page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things We Lost in the Fire (Grey's Anatomy)

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

Episodes do not necessarily deserve their own article, WP:Episode ~ Preceding post created by larsona ^//Talk// 19:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but could you explain why you think this one doesn't? Is it non-notable or too soon? I notice the air date was only a few days ago, and that other episodes such as the previous one haven't been nominated. Adam9007 (talk) 00:28, 22 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! 01:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Either this is notable, in which case we should keep it, or it isn't, in which case we should redirect it to List of Grey's Anatomy episodes because it's a plausible search term. Whatever we do with this material won't involve using the "delete" button.—S Marshall T/C 01:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD can be useful in determining consensus regarding whether it should be kept or redirected, and such a discussion can be pointed to when the need arises. There are more potential results for an AfD close than just keep or delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator does not list a valid reason for deletion. This is a relatively popular series that has many standalone articles on its episodes. There seems to be the usual episode reviews and coverage in RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:36, 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 merge to Chab Dai. Consensus is that this individual does not have separate notability from the organization she founded. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Sworn

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

Falls short of WP:BIO. Only sources are either very brief mentions in passing or from affiliated organisations. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This interview with an academic Centre at Georgetown University does not fit Nom's assertion that "Only sources are either very brief mentions in passing or from affiliated organisations."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those interviews are awfully random. This is the full list, and the vast majority of people on it are just random ordinary people they've decided to interview in that specific area: at a glance, none of them stand out as obviously notable, and the vast majority of them absolutely marginal at best. I don't think there's anyone on that list that wouldn't at least be nominated for AfD if an article were created. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Drover's Wife, It is really not useful to make sweeping assertions of this sort. I only had to eyeball the page to see that your first assertion was inaccurate. I only had to eyeball the list you linked to (starting at the bottom) to spot the name of a man Saad Eddin Ibrahim who I knew should have a Wikipedia article. (I checked no other names on the list) All that I am asking you to do is to slow down, and limit your assertions to what you know you can source. I also sometimes make mistaken assertions here at AFD. If called on one, I admit it. At this point, I still know nothing about Helen Sworn. But you certainly have piqued my interest. Is this another article written by that editor who put up a raft of articles on Christianity-related topics that have been up recently at AFD? I never did go back to see precisely what that editor had done merit such hated. Was he a sock? I'd appreciate the 10 second version, if you have 10 seconds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - He was a major ideologue with a creepy obsession with sex trafficking, and a tendency to write articles on every random person who had ever crossed paths with some model he was obsessed with who was interested in it. This is one of them. I'm glad you found someone on that list who was notable, but my point stands: being selected on a vast list of nearly all non-notable people is not indicative of notability, even if all of one of them happens to be notable, and this article fails WP:BIO dismally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, dear. Thanks, I guess. I suppose it's not surprising that an open platform like Wikipedia attracts the occassional creepy sex guy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Chab Dai the organization Sworn founded. There are long, substantive interviews on Sworn's admirable work ( I added one from the Cape Argus. What is lacking are sources on her bio. So, redirect to a sourced paragraph about her as founder in the article: Chab Dai.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:00, 21 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! 01:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chab Dai -- I do not think that she and her organisation are sufficiently independent of each other to need two articles, However worthy the cause. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. This link isn't working for me, so the only significant independent coverage in RSs that I see mentioned are the film interview. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sings Songs From The Wiz

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

Reads like an essay, not immediately obvious what it's about, mostly WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced essay, and the topic is ill-defined and not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic is clearly this one about a "lost" Diana Ross album released a couple of days ago. The original album was produced by Quincy Jones and featured songs written by Luther Vandross among others. I'll do a bit more digging around after I've had some more sleep, but I'd be amazed if that didn't meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2015

(UTC)

Delete Why are we talking about notability? The article is solid spam for the newly released album, complete with pointers to where you can buy it. It would need a complete rewrite to be acceptable, and I would have speedied if it hadn't been brought here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is at WP:BEFORE: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Valenciano (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following rewrite. The initial article was crap, but it's about a notable, recently released "lost" Diana Ross album, which meets criteria 1 and 5 of WP:NALBUM, as the album has been featured in the Wall Street Journal and Playbill among others. As the film which inspired it was notable, it's more than likely that there are other, offline sources. Valenciano (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't even know why this is being even considered for deletion. Its an album and desrves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrata93 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More source search links below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:NALBUMS points #1 and 5. Also keep per WP:HEY; the article was entirely rewritten after being nominated for deletion. Source examples include: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 6 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 redirected to Jeelan Central College, which is a translation of this page Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ஜீலான் மத்திய கல்லூரி,பாணந்துறை

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

Article appears to be written completely in a foreign language dschslava (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a reason for deletion, see WP:NOTENGLISH... JMHamo (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Translated, it's rather promotional. Given its whole-cloth transcription as well as the COI involvement, I suspect it's a copyright violation.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page is a copy of the now deleted Jeelan Centrl College,Panadura. and ta:ஜீலான் மத்திய கல்லூரி. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:06, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearly Gates (guitar pickup)

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

Non-notable model of guitar pickup. Substantial coverage is not forthcoming to establish notability; lots of incidental references, but nothing that clearly establishes this product meets WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 13 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 speedied as A7 like I tagged (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burton "The Burtonator" Legendary Correctional Officer

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

Appears to be someone's idea of a joke, given the edits and my inability to corroborate any of it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's a vanity page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unreferenced biography of a living person (presumably), although it contains a faux reference. It makes no plausible claim of notability, and is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shohada Basij Ray FSC

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

Non-notable club JMHamo (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This club played 3 seasen in the Iranian Premiere Futsal League a professional futsal league competition for clubs located at the highest level of the Iranian futsal league system.--saeedparva 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:Reliable Sources for your claim that this is a professional league. JMHamo (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which league? Iranian Premiere Futsal League?--saeedparva 21:02, 21 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! 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:18, 6 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug James (correspondent)

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

WP:GNG... I'm not sure a correspondent to a bigger show, especially this guy, qualifies for his own article. ~ Preceding post created by larsona ^//Talk// 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the same creator also created duplicate articles about the same person at Doug James (former newscaster, CFRA, Ottawa) and Doug James (former correspondent CNN, CBC). Both of those have since been redirected to this title, and the creator has been advised to stop creating multiple articles about the same person — but I'm noting them because if this gets deleted those will have to go with it (and even if it does get kept, those are still implausible and unhelpful redirects that don't actually add anything of value to the main title, and should potentially still get deleted anyway.) At any rate, the article is definitely poorly written and sourced in its existing form, and reads far more like the kind of PR blurb one might read on the website of his own employer than it does an encyclopedia article. However, being a foreign correspondent for notable news organizations such as CNN and the CBC is a valid notability claim for a journalist, as long as the resulting article is properly sourced — and I just did a ProQuest search and did find some coverage of him by which it can be improved. Keep and I'll work on fixing it. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 21 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! 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearcat has greatly improved the article and I believe the subject now passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. clpo13_(talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Clpo13. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 23:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rowley (broadcaster)

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

Autobiography that contains inadequate evidence of notability. (If independent evidence of notability can be supplied other than by the author, I am of course willing to keep.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment it looks like he may have won or at least been nominated for National Union of Journalists award.^[1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment it also looks like he was voted in the top 50 of political commentators in the UK, although who knows how big the list was. ^[2] Tiggerjay (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Television & Radio. Independent Broadcasting Authority. 1986.
^ "Press Gazette's top 50 political reporters".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:09, 29 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! 05:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few refs in the article but nothing that indicates he's notable. A recently created article which won't go anywhere because his career is in its twilight or ended. Szzuk (talk) 16:39, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Sidika

AfDs for this article:

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

low noteworthy person, low quality sources, help this article out and delete it Govindaharihari (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 21 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! 00:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs improvement, look at the previous deletion discussion. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 23:53, 29 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! 05:17, 6 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.

[ChattarjiChattarji2011-1] Associate Professor Department of English Subarno Chattarji; Subarno Chattarji (1 March 2011). Tracking the Media: Interpretations of Mass Media Discourses in India and Pakistan. Routledge. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-1-136-70505-2.

[Kellman2003-2] Steven G. Kellman (2003). Switching Languages: Translingual Writers Reflect on Their Craft. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 16–. ISBN 0-8032-2747-7.

[Campbell2009-3] James T. Campbell (31 August 2009). Race, Nation, & Empire in American History: Easyread Edition. ReadHowYouWant.com. pp. 566–. ISBN 978-1-4429-9395-2.

[RaoElst2003-4] Ramesh N. Rao; Koenraad Elst (2003). Gujarat after Godhra: real violence, selective outrage. Har Anand Publications.

[Thapar2007-5] Romesh Thapar (2007). Seminar. R. Thapar.

[AgnihotriDatta-Ray2002-6] S. K. Agnihotri; B. Datta-Ray (2002). Perspective of Security and Development in North East India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 314–. ISBN 978-81-8069-165-2.

[Ganguly2015-7] Suranjan Ganguly (1 May 2015). The Films of Adoor Gopalakrishnan: A Cinema of Emancipation. Anthem Press. pp. 158–. ISBN 978-1-78308-410-4.

[8] Mattering to India: The Shashi Tharoor Campaign. Pearson Education India. 2011. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-81-317-5944-8.

[Sharma2008-9] Arvind Sharma (30 November 2008). The World's Religions After September 11. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-275-99621-5.

[Dey-10] Diptanu Dey. Hinduism - A Critical Review. Lulu.com. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-1-105-27369-8.

[11] ttp://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/out-of-the-blue/

[12] "Weak-heap sort".

[13] "The weak-heap data structure: Variants and applications".

[14] "Policy-Based Benchmarking of Weak Heaps and Their Relatives,".

[15] "The weak-heap family of priority queues in theory and praxis".

[16] "On the Performance of WEAK-HEAPSORT".

[17] "Policy-Based Benchmarking of Weak Heaps and Their Relatives,".

[18] "Relaxed Weak Queues: An Alternative to Run-Relaxed Heaps".

[19] "Southern Baptists press for uniformity". Reading Eagle. January 21, 2006.

[20] "Southern Baptists fight each other, after defeating liberals". The Tuscaloosa News. January 21, 2006.

[21] "Pastor's blog spurs board's ouster request". NewsOK.com.

[22] "'Man of grace' rises from crowd to head Baptists". NewsOK.com.

[23] "Blogger Burleson resigns from International Mission Board". The Baptist Standard.

[24] "Pastor renews call for database of clergy sex abuse". The Christian Century.

[25] "Censured Southern Baptist Critic Resigns". ChristianityToday.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[26] "Denomination's image may become kinder... but no less conservative". Kentucky New Era. June 16, 2006.

[27] "Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary admits its first Muslim student". Washington Post. 19 May 2014.

[28] Television & Radio. Independent Broadcasting Authority. 1986.

[29] "Press Gazette's top 50 political reporters".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]