Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 December	11 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Since it has been relisted twice, closing it. The episode seems to have received coverage specifically focused on it and the consensus leans towards keeping it. Renamed to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode). (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-whistle politics (Scandal)

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

This article is about particular episode in the TV show "Scandal." Shouldn't this episode be included in that realm instead of making a completely new article about one episode? TheInformativePanda (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Making a Wikipedia page for each episode doesn't help the fans of the series nor everybody else, especially 'Dog-whistle politics' is a political term used in the UK. Article should be merged.45sixtyone (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) for correctness/clarity. Wikipedia:Television episodes applies, the Huffington Post article provides a little context/reflection, the Time magazine ref establishes notability, and the article is properly constructed and contains information over and above that in the Episode List.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) because it does meet the notability standards. Amazingstuff101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it received more press that most television episodes, but it is not independently notable. The articles go to the notability of Scandal. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider required to reach sufficient notibility for this episode (independently)? In the case of this Scandal episode:

As with everything, there are enough mundane recaps, episode reviews, and ratings information to provide a base article (not sufficient in itself to establish notability).
Time rating this particular episode as one of the third-best episode of 2015 adds weight to the episode's Reception.
For a dissenting view see this.
This piece puts the episode into specific context with a dispute between former NYT critic Alessandra Stanley and Scandal's showrunner. Shonda Rhimes (ref not in current article) -- this provides some more background on the incident.
This piece includes comment by Rhimes on the episode/context.
Another piece which links the incident with this episode is this.
The Huffington Post article explicitly discusses the issues raised by this episode.
The contextual information cannot be easily and naturally included in an aggregated page.

Perhaps WP:Television episodes could do with a community-agreed rubric for notability given the huge quantity of episode-specific articles on wikipedia (cf Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Policy_inconsistent_with_reality). Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is weak, and there might be an argument for merging it into a season list, but there's enough provided significant coverage from reliable sources that it demonstrates notability beyond just the show itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 17 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) 04:53, 25 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Feiner

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a town supervisor and a non-winning candidate for election to Congress. Neither of these are claims that satisfy NPOL — outside of the rarefied class of major metropolitan global cities a municipal councillor gets an article only if he can be sourced and substanced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and non-winning candidates for office are only eligible for articles if they were already eligible for some other reason independent of their candidacy. And the sourcing here is entirely of the primary source variety — a meeting schedule on the town's website and his own self-published Blogspot blog — so GNG hasn't been met, or even really attempted, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it WP:SPIP? No independent sources. Delete. 45sixtyone (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell about whether it was self-promotional, it looks possible, but since it fails notability it really does not matter. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL, and aside from articles about his status as a candidate for New York's 20th congressional district, there is no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Town supervisor for 24 years and counting of town of 88k residents, who does seem to have garnered sufficient independent RS coverage to satisfy GNG, particularly this lengthy piece in the NY Times. I will update sourcing in the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added 12 refs to the article, most of which address the subject extensively, including two lengthy NY Times pieces dedicated to this subject--the one mentioned above, and this one, about his trials and tribulations fundraising for his 1998 Congressional campaign. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The piece linked in your first comment is definitely a step in the right direction. This one, however, doesn't contribute notability points — media have a public service obligation to grant coverage to all candidates in all election campaigns involving their coverage area, so campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot count toward GNG except on the very rare occasion that it nationalizes into something on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reading of WP:ROUTINE. If it were an election summary with paragraphs about each of the candidates, of course, but this thousand-word profile in the Times surely exceeds routine coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Hobbes Goodyear. Easily passes WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, we exclude articles about failed candidacies from consideration. When you take those away, you don't have much. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that subject is inherently notable under NPOL. Failure to qualify on NPOL grounds does not disqualify a subject who meets GNG. I would urge other editors to review the article, its refs, and other sources available online and judge for themselves whether subject meets the general notability guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep I ran a proquest news archive search, and just added a long article from the New York Times analyzing his first year as Supervisor. The Times followed his work in that position for years, and also covered his runs for Congress. As did other papers. Extensive, detailed coverage of his political career in RS exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the one I put on the page [1], which is a long discussion of his first term as Supervisor, here is the search of the NYTimes archive on Finer: [2]. It one about the tough time he has running for congress: [3] a feature story about a spat tiwh the Fire Chief involving an ethnic slur [4], a long profile of him as a political activist [5], in-depth coverage of his run for supervisor [6], a color story about a development battle between Feiner and a beloved golf driving range [7] - and that doesn't even get us to the end of the 1st page in the Times archibve search. There is more in-depth stuff. I am getting the idea that he was a colorful politician. Of course, the Times website is password protected. I am working from a machine wired into powerful search engines. Do these stories not come up on searches non-subscribers to the New York Times run? I can see where that would be a problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't do more than scan these sources, but the coverage war far form positive. It if's a vanity article, it may be poor judgment on the creator's part. We are all in User:Bearcat's debt for his labor screening ot non-notable, local politicians and pages for politician wannabes. but this one can be closed as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously more notable then your typical Miss Oregon USA who automatically gets an article based on one mention in a local paper. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I'm not convinced. Several sources have been added but they are of the "local interest" variety; we could likely find the same sort of coverage for any local-level politician who's served for a couple decades. It doesn't demonstrate notability. The NYTimes sources are compelling, but they are also exclusively confined to the "regional" section, the section for local-interest news, which also contains "Things to do in New Jersey" listings. I don't think that GNG is met, despite everyone's genuinely hard work to find sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by your assertion, so I went back and checked. a search on: Paul J. Finer Greenburgh got over a thousand hits on Proquest. I never see that many at an AFD; people with that kind of coverage don't get to AFD. And that is despite the fact that hits on those 2 local papers seem not to have archives going back to Feiner's most acttive era. I did not read every article ans will not make grand sweeping claims about their being "exclusively confined" to any particular thing. I did jump to p. 10 of the search, where it looked like coverage of routine county business. But the earlier pages had many strange and colorful headlines. Moreover, while many articles on Feiner are in the Westchester edition, others are not. Westchester, of course, has a population of a million people. I'm not sure that we can dismiss the Westchester edition of the Times a s "local". There are town-level papers, and were mre in Feiner's era. The The Journal News, is a recent merger of several of the local papers that were still lively in the Feiner era. Coverage of Feiner in the Times is more like the activities of a particular suburban supervisor getting coverage in a major regional daily. ( Oh , there is also coverage in the regional Westchester County Business Journal). In the Times, though, coverage takes on a different character. They cover him as a character. Because I thought that some of the stories I listed above weren't local, I clicked one I hadn'd click on before, chosen for its colorful title, "Let the Circus Come to Town Greenburgh's Banning of Animal Performances Is a Misstep". Not a "routine" story about a local town policy. On Proquest I see that it ran in the Westchester edition on 9 June 2002; but searching the Times archive I find it in the International edition on June 9, 2002. under shortened title Soapbox: Let the Circus Come to Town, by JANE CHAMBLESS WRIGHT. Then the Times ran a follow-up story on 16 June, " This was not a low-key, local debate. A hearing before Greenburgh's town supervisor, Paul J. Feiner drew more than 150 people and attention from animal rights advocates as far away as Maine, Florida and England. Circuses, speaker after speaker said, were little more than a tradition of sanctioned animal abuse.

What? Are they nuts? asked Lynn Goodman of North White Plains, standing outside the Cole Brothers tent before the last afternoon show. Has everyone gone crazy? The circus is great.

Animal advocates say it is impossible to create spectacles like elephants standing on their heads or tigers leaping through hoops of fire without terrifying the animals into submission." Clearly, Feiner was so colorful that the Times treated him to coverage beyond routine. And at least sometimes ran it in non-Westchester editions. If the edition of the paper is what this hangs on (I argue that the Westchester edition is a major regional , not a local paper) - someone needs to comb through those articles before deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your indent, hope that's okay. I see what you mean, and you have access to a search tool that I don't think I do, so my review is based only on the sources which are already in the article and those I dug up on Google, which backed up my assertion, but I'll take your word on your search results. I think it's probable that Feiner has achieved notability only by inheriting it from things that happened in Westchester during his tenure as town supervisor (which is like mayor, I assume? a prominent position anyway) but then there's enough of those things and Feiner has been around long enough that we'd end up with an article on him even if we followed the letter of the guideline and only wrote articles about the events. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the exchange above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see a bit more improvement here if at all possible, but I'm convinced that enough has been done here to satisfy WP:GNG. While it's true that municipal-level politicians don't get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, they are eligible for consideration under NPOL #3 if a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article can be written — and this article is now quite a bit more substantive, and significantly better sourced, than it was at the time of nomination. Thanks to Hobbes Goodyear and E.M. Gregory. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 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 00:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ageno

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

Article has been an orphan for well over 1 year; article has multiple issues that no one has fixed Ankababel (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He turns up mainly in books. Here's one in English. And here's a book on the history of physics in Italy that has a fair amount about him: Foresta, Martin F, and Geppi Calcara. Per Una Storia Della Geofisica Italiana: La Nascita Dell'istituto Nazionale Di Geofisica (1936) E La Figura Di Antonino Lo Surdo. Milano: Springer, 2010. Plus, there was an entire symposium in his honor: Ageno, Mario, Edoardo Amaldi, and L Maiani. Fisica E Biofisica Oggi: Atti Del Simposio in Onore Di M. Ageno : Roma, 1-2 Ottobre 1985 : Società Italiana Di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 1989. So I would say that he easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. I'll try to add a few sources to the article, but physics isn't my forte. LaMona (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems notable and acceptable and will need familiar attention for improvements. DGG, given you have some familiar insight with this, would you comment? SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically for the same reason LaMona already gave: he seems to have plenty of in-depth and reliably published book coverage, enough for WP:GNG. Some of the sources are in Italian but that's ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly a snow keep.' I am a little puzzled at the possible justification for this nomination. "article has multiple issues that no one has fixed" is not a reason for deletion--or we'd delete almost every article in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. This is faulty reasoning for this to be at AfD, the articles verifiability/notability don't seem to be in question, just the quality of the article, which really (while short) is not terrible. Jacona (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly Speedy Keep -- the nom has given a rationale but not one that is generally recognized for AfD consideration. Notable subject. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOWBALL close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Ihorivna Kovaliv

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

Non-notable individual, article reads like a resume and puffery piece JMHamo (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 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} 07:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She can't even manage an article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia! Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage is not in-depth. Article created by single purpose editor so suspicious WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digon

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

This article had the history of Degenerate polygon before it was moved on January 13, 2015 by Double sharp to Improper regular polygon and then by Steelpillow on September 6, 2015 to Degenerate polygon. It is now redundant to there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am no longer completely sure about merging monogons and digons, as the latter are far more legitimate - they make sense as abstract polytopes. The monogon does not as it has two 1-sections that are not line segments. (It doesn't have any 1-polytopes as elements, for a 1-polytope must have two endpoints - a 0-sphere - and the single "edge" of the monogon has but one.) It seems like they may be better separated. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - and comment: It is actually the degenerate polygon article that should be AfD-ed. That article fails WP:NOTABILITY - there is no mathematical literature devoted to the degeneracy of polygons, it is just a rag-bag of cases which get passing mention in the literature. For the same reason, wikipedia doesn't have articles on degenerate graphs or degenerate elephants either. On the other hand the digon itself is most useful when it is not degenerate, such as in spherical geometry, graph theory, abstract polytope theory, etc. and its properties are discussed in sufficient depth in sufficient sources to establish its notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the reasons spelled out by Steelpillow; a digon emphatically is an important geometric shape in non-euclidean geometries, and seemingly also in other fields I'm less familiar with. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- a moment's web searching confirms that "digon" is a term frequently used in the mathematical literature, with a specific meaning that is separate from some general conception of degenerate polygons. Degenerate polygon smushed this, and the monogon into a single article in a way that did not improve the coverage of either. Accordingly, I have also rescued monogon, and made degenerate polygon into a redirect to a subsection of degeneracy (mathematics), where any specifics that are not already covered by monogon or digon can be mentioned. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Digon is a standard term in geometry for a line segment with multiplicity two. This way, one gets all cyclic groups as rotation symmetries of polygons. I've also seen digon used to refer to a lune of the sphere, but I think that is probably best kept completely separate. Sławomir
Biały 14:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Although, I am sorely tempted to vote delete, for the sake of using the pun: "Let digons be bygones."[reply]

Comment:' yes, I've seen that too. I've created digon (disambiguation) to deal with that, and added {{otheruses}} to the top of the digon article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spherical lune is in fact an example of a regular digon: Coxeter provides a rock-solid reference in Regular Polytopes. The two articles need to acknowledge each other, as their subjects overlap although they are distinct (not all digons are lunes, while treating the circular lune as an irregular digon would not be sensible). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, digon (disambiguation) is therefore misconceived and should be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The digon has also been called the "bigon" in our culture's habitual mashing up of Latin prefixes with Greek suffixes. That has pretty much fallen out of use nowadays so we can truly say "let bigons be byegons" without fear of deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - It might be merged and redirected into Lune_(geometry)#Spherical_geometry, although you might also argue the spherical lune section be merged here, and focus the lune article on the 2D cases. Mathworld splits into 2 article Lune and SphericalLune, and a third "degenerate" digon. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it should definitely not be merged into the lune article, as that's only one special case of a digon. There are two concepts here: the abstract concept of a digon, without regard to being embedded in any space, which needs its own standalone article, and one possible realization of a digon, embedded within a spherical surface, which should be mentioned in both the digon and lune articles. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADD (x86 instruction)

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

Too detailed for an encyclopedia, this article is essentially a tutorial for a x86 assembly instruction. All other encyclopedic content can be merged. Delete or merge to x86 instruction listings per WP:NOPAGE. Esquivalience ^t 22:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article is available as I agree that it currently looks more like a guide. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with the article, but Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. As far as an encyclopedia goes, this topic is fully covered in the x86 assembly language article by the paragraph under Integer ALU instructions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Are you planning to delete the whole of Category:x86 instructions and its children too?

WP is not a paper encyclopedia. It is not limited by page count. The topic here is clearly highly notable (it is very widely covered by sources, which is our benchmark). It is significant to technology - if you're reading this, you're probably doing it via x86 ADD instructions somewhere. So just what is the policy-based reason for deleting this? "Not interesting to me" is not a policy-based reason. Nor is "delete until a better article is available" (we have a myriad such articles, far worse than this, and we can't get rid of them.

Maybe WP should never discuss any opcode, for any processor. But if it does, this would seem to be one of the most important, thus most justified for coverage. Not the most interesting perhaps; a commonplace ADD doesn't have the obscure charm of HCF (Halt and Catch Fire), it's not interesting enough to make me want to spend time writing it. But that isn't a valid reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Andy Dingley's question _Are you planning to delete the whole of Category:x86 instructions and its children too? The answer is no. (1) Afd is a piecemeal process, each article being evaluated on its own merits. (2) many of the articles at Category:X86 instructions are fine articles, like AES instruction set. The policy reason to delete is "What Wikipedia is Not". It is not a manual or a textbook, and that seems to be what this article is trying to be. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to not have this article. What policy does it break?

@Andy Dingley: You ask What policy does it break? The policy that it breaks is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please read it. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean by that the "instruction manual" clause. However that depends on whether you see discussion of an opcode as an instruction manual and nothing more. A programmer might see that, a processor designer certainly wouldn't. Even if an article text is no more than a limited scope at a particular time, we should judge deletion on the basis of the topic, not the article. Opcodes are broader than this. We wouldn't delete VW Beetle just because there's also a Haynes manual for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that a set of articles on opcodes are a reasonable thing, then that would be a strange set if it then excluded one of the most common of all. It would not be surprising if such an article hadn't yet been produced, but in this case it has. It's bizarre indeed to then set out to find arcane reasons why it could then be deleted. No-one gains from such a deletion. The encylopedia is not improved by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to ADD (computer instruction), trim down the x86 material and the pseudo navigation "template", and expand it into a general article about the ADD instruction on the lines of the NOP article. While Wikipedia doesn't need to provide a detailed reference manual for the x86 architecture, the instruction itself is certainly worth an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. There might be some things to say about add instructions in general. Various ways of handling (and signalling) cary, overflow, negative, zero, etc. Chaining operations to perform multi-precision operations. I suppose it's possible that such an article could be written, but I'm having a hard time seeing it. I could certainly see an article about typical modern ALU architectures (maybe this already exists?), but an article about a particular arithmetic operation seems unlikely to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a manual or texbook. There are other Wikimedia projects better suited to that. StarryGrandma's idea could work, but I'm not sure what content from this article would be salvaged. It's basically a manual for a specific x86 instruction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article contains history, which is not something found in a manual. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no history in this article, certainly there is no such section, and I didn't see any refernce to versions. Are you refering to the differences between processors? Lastly, manuals sometimes do include "history" in that they refer to different instructions that may be required when dealing with different versions, or in this case processors. --Bejnar (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Extensions were introduced with I80386 (32-bit operands) and x86-64 (64-bit operands)." My point remains that the objection of NOT MANUAL doesn't seem to fit. Unscintillating (talk) 09:32, 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 delete. joe decker ^talk 04:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vhoto

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

no true 3rd party refs, except information on initial funding. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy later if needed as News, browsers and Highbeam found several links but perhaps nothing for a better article currently as they were all from May 2014 so there hasn't been any other coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about a company and its propriary process. It fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The May 2014 articles were news articles based on its initial press releases. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Founded last year, got a couple of reviews, but seems short of coverage for GNG purposes. Seems to already be out of business or reorganized--website is dead, other than message, "Thank You! We are so thankful for your support over the past year! Although Vhoto is taking a different path, we hope you continue to record life! Thanks for sharing your lives with us through GIFs and pics on Vhoto. It's been an incredible journey!" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:45, 17 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:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden Jungle

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

Fails WP:FILMNOT. Not notable, no coverage to be found as far as I can tell. Except user generated stuff that I have deleted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another WP:GNG fail from the SPAs. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find this listing and it was mentioned in this article, these are not enough to establish notability for the film. This article suffers from the same issues that the other sock creations do - it's full of various claims that cannot be substantiated by any reliable source that would pass muster and given that there are concerns of false claims and even hoaxes with the other articles, I'd say that it would be best to delete this and create a redirect after the issues with the main Chaney article have been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with the others above. I'm pretty sure that it exists, but that's not really enough for an article. Most of the hits I'm seeing are from an old Tarzan film. It doesn't even seem to have been indexed in most film databases, such as Allmovie or Baseline. I'm thinking this was probably an obscure limited release or direct-to-video film that never really got any attention. If I'm wrong, then the article can always be recreated with better evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:26, 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 procedural keep. Closing in accordance with the other AfD mentioned in the nomination statement. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2015

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

Please see rational and place all comments here for the group: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_10#Miss_Earth_2001 Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per WP:GNG. This is an ongoing and world wide noted pageant. One of the two very top pageants within the Big 4. Over a billion viewers each year. Sources seems ok and the final will air in over 100 countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I am placing a comment here even though there are a main article for the entire lot. But this one is ongoing and that is a different case. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey have you looked at the excessive detail here? Snowman building competition winners? Tree planting top three? Entries, exits, replacements... This is not the Olympics. Maybe you want to give it a trim? Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. This article was simultaneously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2001 which just closed as keep. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 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. Procedural close per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2001. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2013

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

Please see rational and place all comments here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_10#Miss_Earth_2001 Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. This article was simultaneously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2001 which just closed as keep. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 18 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. While the !vote tally is fairly divided, there is significant policy-based support for keeping the articles as notable subjects, and these comments have not been successfully refuted. Arguments in favor of deletion are substantially weaker. The case for deletion comprises allegations of poor sourcing, COI editors, sockpuppetry, and "fancruft" and "spam". Even assuming all of these concerns are legitimate across every one of these articles, these are usually considered to be addressable problems that do not require article deletion, I'm not seeing much evidence to actually support these arguments, nor am I seeing much of a case being made to explain why the articles need to be deleted to rectify these concerns, legitimate though they may be. In sum, there is a rough consensus to keep. Regards, Swarm ♠ 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2001

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

All the marginally important data from these articles is found at List of Miss Earth titleholders and more general info at Miss Earth so the annual articles should be deleted, maybe turned into redirects. The excessive detail in the annual articles is poorly sourced WP:FANCRUFT and is highly promotional. The company is best understood in the context of the the Miss Earth article and the winners and runnerups are best understood in the context of the consolidated list of winners and others who place. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all To add to the misery: all articles that I have checked (not all) showed sockpuppet activity. WP:RS seems something scary for the involved editors as they are seldom used. The whole series can be deleted as unreliable in my opinion. The Banner talk 01:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Granted, a look at this series of articles collectively does find some quality issues. But "to add to the misery" the proposal relies on the increasingly vague hackney of "highly promotional" and the substantially subjective brush of "FANCRUFT"; the support for deletion indicates that "not all" of the articles have been checked. Which ones were checked isn't specified, what specific sockpuppet activity was found isn't stated, and whether remediation is feasible isn't addressed in an informative way. As far as "no reliable sourcing" I found the claim to be erroneous, at least for 2001, which I did check. There are unsourced statements, and there are deadrefs, and there are other issues: all of which is, however, distinct from an unsourced article. Then there is the thorn that we never, ever allow in AfD: the thorn of common sense cross-article comparison. It would be common sense, even if we put on our jaded blinkers and follow AfD protocol, to look at the similar annual entries for the other three pageants in the Big Four international beauty pageants. Which I did, and they do not seem dimensionally different. Respectfully, can we define what is irremediably "highly promotional" and "FANCRUFT" about this series of articles? So that's my initial comments, not an actual final opinion. I might look at the articles again a little tomorrow and clean up a little, but then again that would be actual salvage work. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant edits to these articles are from a big sock farm. I've not compared them to the other international pageant articles, but in general Wikipedia topic coverage is plagued with problems like unsourced content, overly promotional, excessive trivia, BLP violations and other problems. Many articles within the topic area were created and expanded by paid and COI editors working to promote their respective pageant companies. One good article is easier to maintain then a many single event ones full of problems. Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Highly notable pageants, sourced, deserves their pages just like any of the other Big 4 do. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other Big 4 are not relevent here, maybe they should be consolidated too but we are dealing with this series of articles. They are repetitive, lack sources for their claims, and I have checked them all. The reader could understand the topic much better without all the excessive detail. Another problem is these list all kinds of other award winners, but the minor awards winners are not notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems that Jj1238 is requesting deletion of the year pages of the other Big Four pageants too! The Banner talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that plan. There are problems with writing articles about 2 hour events. What can you really say of substance? Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about football games and soccer matches, all of which are of similar duration, as well as for individual horse races that take a few minutes and runnings of the 100m dash that take a few seconds. Are you arguing that Wikipedia policy requires deletion of anything about an event that takes less than a day? Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K eep all: any fancruft, promotional language or lack of sources is not a valid deletion reason WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'm not convinced that these lack notability. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is just an essay. But the main thing is that the articles are prone to sockpuppets, meat puppets and SPAs and are largely based on unsuitable sources, too such a degree the the articles are unreliable. The Banner talk 13:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's an essay but it recounts what the policy (including WP:DEL1) says about what is and is not a reason for deletion. And well, AfD is not sockpuppet investigation either. Sockpuppetry is serious, yes, but allegations shouldn't be made without evidence (and there are methods to obtain evidence). Pages should not be deleted pre-emptively for being prone to sockpuppet editing either. Pages are not even protected pre-emptively. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect all - This whole stuff looks like it is one of the dozens of other lobbying awareness beauty pageantries. If it is really the third largest of all, like the main article claims, why the other ones from the big three do not have this same sort of cruft attached to them...? I can not really see these prizes being worth of a semi-biographical article for each and every winner or event. I could not find additional notability from the articles themselves for these women, or for these events. WP:EVENT. Tereza Fajksová and Olga Álava for instance have their own articles already, and they deserve them for their own deeds. Ceosad (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole lot exists because of a big paid groups p of SPA sock marketing effort to increase the profile of this company. That is well established theough past SPIs. Actual third party coverage for these events is limited to a few reprints of press releases on slow news days. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Can you link us to the SPI case(s), Legacypac? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All WP:Fancruft is a piss-poor excuse for deletion; It's a mere essay that basically ads up to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT in slightly different words. These articles cover notable events, with ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources around the Earth about the events. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to the effort to search and link- pick some major contributors and see if they are blocked or not. If there is amble reliable and verifiable sources upgrading the article to being fully cited should be easy. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said a sock puppet investigation. WP:SPI is a formal process and findings are documented in the archives (a search came up with one result that doesn't match your description). As for sources: eg. Miss Earth 2001 has more than half a dozen and they aren't carbon copies of a press release, but written by journalists of major agencies and papers. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related SPI-investigations are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive. And this is only the harvest of sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers once active on Miss Earth 2015... The Banner talk 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: for spam by COI users. It would have been very useful to provide proof of sockpuppetry in the initial nomination, when allegations thereof are a crucial part of the nom. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and move certain information of these in the Miss Earth article. - User:Supergabbyshoe 02:41, 15 December 2015 (PST)
Delete for lack of substance, lack of substantive independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, and as unnecessary content forks. There is no need for a series of redirects as they all start with "Miss Earth". --Bejnar (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All there are contributors that will include reliable independent sources. Opinions to delete are irrelevant, if we rely on your personal references, Wikipedia is no longer adhering to its policy. Refer to these essays if you are in a rush to delete these articles: WP:DEADLINE WP:NOEFFORT WP:IDL Viridian80 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- The reliable sources should be given in the article, not just promised. When I throw in the efoort you want from me, it will mean removing all unsuitable sources leaving whole articles without sources. The effort to provide reliable sources should have be done by the editor who added the info. The Banner talk 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The nomination for deletion seems very suspicious as they seem to be identified as personal preferences and just belong in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reliable sources such as official websites, news, and other sources are clearly present in Miss Earth articles. Miss Earth is an annual event like other beauty pageants such as Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International. It is important for these events to have an article in Wikipedia for historical purposes. Miss Earth article introduces the pageant, pageant system and the main points of the pageant. However, articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth. If Miss Earth articles have to be deleted, Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International articles must also be deleted.User:Chburnett98 07:48 , 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added your name to your post. Let's look into that idea too. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 08:37,(talk) 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep All to delete these articles would be like delete the Football World Cup articles. But no one would do that. Miss Earth is a BIG4 beauty pageant and falls under WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough to justify deletion of a very well known beauty pageant.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you read the nomination properly, you see that Miss Earth itself is not nominated. Only the year-articles. The Banner talk 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never mentioned the Miss Earth article itself. I mean the separate articles as well. I thought that was implied.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Football World Cup is a MUCH larger event then these annual pageants are. Here is a better example of a consolidated list Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants covering 52 pageants a year across many years. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All The articles passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Miss Earth is a notable pageant and deserves the annual articles just like the other Big 4 pageants: Miss World, Miss Universe, and Miss International. The key is to work on the articles and add reliable sources not to delete these articles. Take for example the article, Miss Earth 2003 has numerous acceptable sources such as BBC, The Associated Press, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN News, Agence France Presse , TIME Magazine, Fox World, and etc. The Miss Earth 2008 article has numerous reliable sources from different news agencies all over the world in different languages for the delegates and this can be done in the other yearly-editions. I agree with the commenter, Chburnett98 that "the articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth." I also agree with Legacypac, that the minor awards winners were not notable to be included in the articles and therefore be deleted, but the major awards in the articles should be retained with acceptable source.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and work to fix the problems. While there are problems with the articles, and perhaps with the editors who contribute to them, deleting them because we don't like the sort of editors who are attracted to them, or because we don't like the subject matter, would amount to censorship of the worst kind. These articles are clearly notable, there are clearly plenty of reliable sources, and are clearly of interest to editors and readers alike. Jacona (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: to me, all the articles of Miss Earth editions are notable. Let's just fix the sources which are unreliable. There are some contributors of the pageant who do not know what are the sources that should be included and should not be included. I believe other major pageants experience the same kind of sources, too. --Artchino (talk) 00:53, 18 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:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Spur

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Most of the 'references' are either to user generated sites, or to sites that don't mention the movie. I can't find any third party references to this film. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Has the same problems as the others. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find this LA Times article from the 80s that refer to it going into production, but I can't find any actual reviews or anything else that would show that it passes NFILM. The article otherwise has the same issues as the other sock-created Chaney articles: it makes a lot of claims that cannot be backed up with reliable sources and given that some of the claims in other articles have been questioned as a hoax, I think that the safest thing here would be to delete this and turn it into a redirect (after the Chaney related issues are resolved as a whole) rather than just make it a redirect with history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 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 delete. There is a strong enough consensus to delete the article. Nakon 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totenmond

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

PROD was removed by Michig with saying that having ten albums with Massacre Records would satisy bands notability guidelines but I'm still questionable about that, as it could simply be that any available coverage is archived but that's an "if" of course", and since my searches found no better coverage and there are no obvious signs of there being any....here we are at AfD. Notifying past user Drmies in case he had any comments at the time. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the circularity in NBAND. A band is notable if it released a few albums on a notable label, and a label is notable if it has a couple of notable bands under contract--it's the closest thing to a walled garden we have on Wikipedia. So strictly speaking Michig is right, I suppose, but it leads to a ton of articles where we have nothing to write an article with, nothing reliable, but we can't delete it. Case in point: Creepmime, which lacks any verified content. And their 1993 album is boring, by the way. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 10 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} 07:39, 17 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) 04:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I sincerely hope this can be relisted again as I was notified one heavy metal fan user is planning to comment here. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist per nominator's request. Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it might meet WP:BAND by the letter, just putting out a few albums that received a few comments at the time and no longer seem to generate any interest doesn't seem to meet the stated goal of Wikipedia notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think there might be a language barrier in play, but we need sources to write an article regardless of any technical claim to notability. If we don't have enough of them, even if it's notable there shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Sort of a WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Been up 4 weeks and there's hardly been any discussion so relisting for a 4th time would be pointless and a waste of time, Consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter's Bane

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

Currently this is questionably notable and improvable as both English and Polish Wiki have a few links but this hardly seems enough for a better article and the best my searches found was only this (basically a few passing mentions, hardly in-depth), this second one is actually simply a Wiki mirror and lastly these links. At best, in the case this is better known through Tim Owens, this article can simply be redirected to his. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original writer of the article, but here's some multiple nontrivial published works that are (usually considered) reliable regarding this band: http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=3182 for an album review, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/winters-bane-mn0001820872 for a biography, as well as Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Power Metal (which I don't have on me at the moment so I can't verify the page, but they were for sure given a biography in that book). EDIT: Page 486 according to the reference I previously added on List of power metal bands. Is it satisfactory to introduce these references to the article in order to indicate notability? Vortiene (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortiene: There has been extensive discussion about whether Allmusic.com is a reliable source. As Liz said here: it depends. Band clasiifications and other metadata at Allmusic.com are user sourced and are deemed unreliable. Individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. Although it has only appeared on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard twice, the consensus seems to be the same, band classifications are suspect and individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. A-Z of Power Metal has not been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it is always a good idea to have a source in front of you when citing it. WP:SAYWHERE says: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I own this book, and there is a section regarding winter's bane on page 486. I usually only use allmusic as a source for band biographies, in which power metal bios are typically written by Eduardo rivadavia, who seems to be referenced often. Metal storm is a database/review site with editors who look over reviews written by their authors. There are reviews written by users, but these are marked as guest reviews. The one linked is not marked as a guest review and hence written by a member of staff and reviewed by an editor. Vortiene (talk) 18:18, 15 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} 07:38, 17 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) 04:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No argument for deletion (i.e., the use of admin tools). Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would appreciate if this were relisted a third time as there hasn't been a clear consensus yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable coverage already identified. More coverage shows up in GBooks. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Making way for more discussion per nominator request. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 04:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beale

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

Seemingly different content to that deleted in September at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Beale, but it still fails WP:NMUSIC with the leaderlive.co.uk article falling under "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". McGeddon (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage, fails WP:NOTEBLP. No claim to notability is made in the lead. Does not fit any of the categories at WP:MUSICBIO. The world record for DJ relay requires the participation of over 100 DJs and is not held by a person, but rather a venue. 2015 record was 150 DJs and 2013 record was 120. --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References that consist of a single local coverage article, plus the subjects own website. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as this is more or less like how the first AfD was. Notifying 1st AfD nominator WikiDan61 in case he's not aware of this 2nd AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article now is not much better than its September incarnation. This is a person of local interest only, with no evidence of significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 17 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:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Spider's Web

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

No secondary coverage, fails WP:FILMNOT I have removed some non RS refs, and just can't find any coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it also fails WP:GNG and is another in the list of WP:SELFPROMOTION items that have been discovered. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe Chaney owns the Kentucky New Era or wrote the in-depth article about his film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's the one source that Schmidt gave above, but that's not enough to establish notability, especially given that it's a local source. All we have is the one source and a search brings up nothing else to establish notability. I think that at best this could be a redirect to the main article for Chaney, but I'd only recommend creating that after we've resolved the many issues with his article. I'm recommending deletion and then a creation of a redirect to deter recreation of the sock created/edited article. The long and short is that this is one of many articles created and edited by a small group of sockpuppets. Most, if not all, of the articles they've created have had some serious sourcing issues and some of them have deliberately misrepresented sourcing in order to make something seem more notable or to back up various claims. There's just too much doubt here for me to feel comfortable keeping this even if there were dozens of sources. At most the KNE source could be used to show notability for Chaney himself, but it's not enough for this to pass NFILM, especially given the overall concerns with the sock creations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. One local newspaper article that has a few production details isn't enough. The article can be recreated if there are further offline sources that cover it in detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per failure of verfiability and WP:GNG. Four sentences in Warren Chaney's small hometown newspaper, Kentucky New Era (circulation 7000) about an apparently at-that-time unreleased movie and sourced only to Chaney himself not only fails significant coverage criteria but doesn't appear to provide any independent verifiability. This article is just another creation by the blocked SPA who seeded Wikipedia with numerous promotional and dubious entries linked to Chaney. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CactusWriter. There's nothing reliable, and it has become increasingly apparent that the New Era hasn't conducted proper reporting with respect to anything by Chaney. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:13, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potion (programming language)

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

Yet another programming language that didn't take off. There are bazillions of them. —Wasell^(T) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Whether it took off or not isn't at issue (see Ford Edsel). What's more important is whether anyone paid attention to it doing it. As the author was _why, that's likely to generate interest from the outset.

As to whether it "took off", then it has already. It's used by at least one group of drone flyers for image processing as it's fast, tiny and expressive for contemporary "what the cool kids are writing" coding style. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Have these drone flyers (or anyone else) publicly written anything that mentions that they are using the potion programming language? Dear Andy Dingley, do you have a name for this group or anyone in it? Even a few blog posts that don't qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources would lead me to support keeping this article a little longer -- that would convince me that there is a good chance this language will meet the Wikipedia: Notability guideline. Alas, I find it difficult to search for people using potion, because autocorrection tries to "help me" by giving me a bunch of irrelevant pages about finding position. --DavidCary (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it is discussed in independent reliable sources, it is well hidden. I did not find anything with GoogleScholar. A lot of the hits were typos for "portion", and there were several for "Magic Potion", a domain specific meta-Language. I did find papers on GoogleScholar mentioning both Michael Fogus and Reini Urban, but none dealing with Potion. Fails WP:GNG. It does sound like an interesting language and I recommend Reini Urban's summary here (not an independet source). --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 15 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} 07:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another programming language with no obvious significance. The only thing in the article that looks like a reliable source is the Slate piece, but that one doesn't even mention the language. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's at best nothing to suggest a considerably better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annisul Huq

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

suspected autobiography due to creators name Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam found several links but perhaps nothing for an immediately better article which would be needed here. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could some or all of the these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] be mined to provide the material to raise the article to your standard? Worldbruce (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zppix: Would you care to elaborate on your deletion rationale? "Suspected autobiography" is not one of the classic reasons for deletion. Wikipedia strongly discourages but does not prohibit autobiographies. If the theory that it's an autobiography is based on the fact that an Annisul Huq (who didn't create the article) has made one edit to it, then it's strange that their one edit was mostly to delete more than three paragraphs of unsourced material about how accomplished he is. If only more autobiographers were that helpful. Worldbruce (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually Wikipedia policies expressly prohibit autobiographies and such need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Please provide a link to the alleged policy expressly prohibiting autobiographies. The guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography says something quite different: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged ... Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." (Emphasis in the original).

In any case, no evidence has been presented that this article is an autobiography. It was not created by Annisul Huq. Edits have been made by 26 non-bots, and include substantive edits by half a dozen regular contributors to WikiProject Bangladesh. If editor Barack Obama makes one edit to Barack Obama, must Wikipedia delete that article? Autobiographies are discouraged because it's difficult to write one that is neutral, verifiable, and free of original research. In my experience, they also tend to be written by non-notable people. So far, neither your nor Zppix has asserted that this article has any of these problems. If it did, all but the problem of notability could be fixed by editing rather needing to resort to deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is the present Mayor of North Dhaka, which is the Capital of Bangladesh and a city with over 10 million people. That makes him notable. The article is in bad shape but when did AFD become the place to improve articles. The creator's name is Tarek Iqbal and only one edit has been done by user named Annisul Huq which can be reverted. It has edits by many different users. Check history of the article. I think the mayor of Dhaka has better things to do then make an article about himself on Wikipedia. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:, For all we know Annsiul Huq, the editor, may or may not be the Mayor of the aforementioned capital. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zppix: We don't know who any editor is. So why delete this article? Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but stub unless sourcing is improved. Clearly meets WP:NPOL as mayor of Dhaka North City Corporation. The sourcing of the article is clearly not adequate for a WP:BLP - it currently seems to consist of one deadlink, which would probably prove both reliable and independent if it were still live, and three others which seem to be primary, not independent of the subject or both. However, a quick search shows a number of clearly reliable sources for his mayoralty, so that (and thus his notability) at least can be established. Finally, as already pointed out above, the creator of the article has quite a different name from the subject, and absolutely no positive evidence has been presented for the deletion rationale that the article is autobiography has been presented beyond the fact that an editor with the same name as the subject has made precisely one recent edit to the article. At most, that would be an argument for reverting the edit - though, in this particular case, even that does not seem advisable as the edit, if anything, improved the article by cutting out quite a bit of puffery (if all autobiographical edits were of this standard, there would be far fewer objections to them). PWilkinson (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no need to stub, citations to multiple independent reliable sources have been added, including the BBC. There does not currently seem to be a pov or tone problem, but those should be identified, as required, on the article's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no indication that WP:BEFORE was followed. No rational or policy-based reason for nomination has been advanced. The subject easily meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk)
Keep, this is a nonsense nomination. Notability is clearly established by any means, the individual is a mayor of a city with millions of inhabitants. Bio available here: http://www.dncc.gov.bd/mayor-administrator/mayor-s-profile.html , election is reported here http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2015/04/29/annisul-huq-gets-mandate-to-become-first-mayor-of-dhaka-north-city-corporation , facebook page has 212,000 likes, https://www.facebook.com/official.annisulhuq . The article was not created by any suspected COI accounts, there is a single edit from a user with that name. And AfD is not the place for clean-ups. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 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} 07:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Goldstein

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

Fails WP:PROF and GNG. Article is entirely cited to person's own articles. My own searches of his bibliography didn't turn up notable papers. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant external discussions and not enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a small number of unimportant papers and 2 unimportant popular books. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is cited occasionally, such as the passing mention in "A Systematic Review of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Don't Assume It's Depression", but I couldn't find any substantive medical review of his work, and the number of passing mentions does not make up for the lack of coverage. Fails WP:GNG. He was definitely not central to work on CFS. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest better notability for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 17 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} 07:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Nursalam Zainal Abidin

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. If he plays this season, then the article can be recreated, but this is WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played a game of professional football yet Spiderone 12:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:01, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado for Family Values

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

No evidence of notability. No press coverage; all references are just passing mentions in book sources (save for a mention that the primary source is one of the co-founders of the organization). The only mention that it did anything was that it helped draft a piece of legislation that led to a Supreme Court case - NOT that it was involved itself with the Supreme Court case. Is that worthy of inclusion? fuzzy510 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Not sure~~ at first but because I think the article may be marginally notable and acceptable but I also would expect obvious signs of better improvement but I only found some links at News and Books. All in all though, I've been thinking and I may at best simply say ~~delete for now~~. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified of these subject AfDs as he may have some insight and also past user Zigzig20s. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBT rights in Colorado. So keep and then merge. Don't "lose" all this referenced info!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider adding information to the LGBT Rights page, butthis should be deleted first. It's an argument, not npov, and should not be preserved. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed local advocacy group. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally, I find the organization despicable and would like nothing more than see the article deleted, but it is covered in detail in the first chapter of this book and several discussions in other books cited are not just mentions but substantial. Like it or not, we probably should have an article on it. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In general I do reluctant support articles on political organizations limited to a single state, but this seems to have enough general importance to be notable, based on the ref. given above DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: FYI: Note that you do already have a bolded Delete !vote above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it--apparently I am indeed undecided, but on re-reading , I incline towards keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There is enough coverage to write something here. (See also Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics, GM Russell, JA Richards - American journal of community psychology, 2003 - Springer) My impression is that lot of the coverage appears to be related to Amendment 2/Romer v. Evans, so I'd suggest considering the latter as a possible merge target, rather than LGBT rights in Colorado, unless non-trivial coverage of the organization's work outside Amendment 2 is available. I agree with DGG's comments here both regarding neutrality here and the need to be cautious about political organizations. --joe decker ^talk 16:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge There seems like there's barely enough in reliable sources here, as per I am One of Many. And to anyone interested, the article could definitely use work - the tone and some of the content are not encyclopedic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like the group has received a good amount of attention in high-profile popular press, law journals, and books, largely for drafting and sponsoring an amendment which went on to be the basis for a Supreme Court case (Romer v. Evans). But the coverage is not limited to that. In addition to the book linked by I am One of Many, sources as follows: Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, DePaul Law Review, Eyes Right! (book, South End Press); The Antigay Agenda (book, UChicago Pres); Associated Press via LA Times, New York Times, LA Times... I will note, however, that I did not go looking for sources critical of the group, but it's safe to say the way the article is written currently does not reflect the way it's covered in the body of literature on the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Ali (politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOL Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent any coherent argument supporting deletion. National chair of a notable UK political party is presumptively notable (or at worst a redirect/merge to the party article), and nom has made no perceptible attempt to comply with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HW. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being the leader of a minor political party can be a valid claim of notability if the article is referenced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it is not a claim of notability that confers an automatic inclusion freebie on an unsourced or badly sourced article. The sourcing here is not adequate to claim GNG: one of the references is just a raw table of the vote totals from the district where he ran as an MP candidate in 2010, so it counts for nothing toward establishing notability, and while the Guardian article is more substantive it's not enough to get him over GNG as the article's only source. Redirect to Respect Party; no prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced and substanced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz thinks that coherent argument is absent. Perhaps he is not aware about and has not read WP:NPOL which is coherent. The policies and guidelines have been defined so that everyone can follow them and we dont have to write an easy every-time we discuss anything. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. One of us hasn't read the relevant guideline, but it's not me. WP:POLOUTCOMES, cited in NPOL, states that "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable. You should be more careful, and not cast aspersions on editors who are more thorough than you are. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just made the article. There is more on Mr. Ali (like this [17]), so I need some time to expand the article. Deleting it now would be too early, since it is still work in progress. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known politician of (dis)repute. Szzuk (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Szzuk says, he's a Well known politician of (dis)repute. I just added a sourced sentence about how he spent time in jail after being convicted of election fraud. There are sources. And I fear that some of the editors who work on the Respect Party page may be inclined to try to airbrush Ali's ~~questionable~~ criminal past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is an enormous cache of articles at the Telegraph & Argus [18]. Article just needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchangi prasanna

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

A journalist and writer. Wrote for a local paper for a few years and has authored two books. Unable to find anything about him. Refs in article is a few sentences on his publisher's website(?) and a sentence. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not even anything to currently suggest satisfying journalists notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 4 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 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Fails WP:GNG. FN2 is not about the topic, but is about a water shortage at Central University of Karnataka. --Bejnar (talk) 21:44, 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. not snow; it has already been relisted once. The arguments of the ed. suggesting keep merely demonstrate the lack of notability as WP:PROF., based on the citation record. The sources for GNG are almost entirely unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory W. Haggquist

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

Of the three refs, one relates to a polymer and the other two are standard business listings so that we know he exists but that is all. No evidence of any notability (except perhaps for the sheer number of publications in 30 years). Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most coverage, where it exists, seems to cover his products far more than it does him. He will probably be more notable one day, however until them, fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:14, 4 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 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only references in this article is about his patents, not the individual himself. Have looked around for reliable sources about him, found none. Manxruler (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article is about the person, he fails WP:NOTEBLP for lack of coverage, much less substantive coverage. If this article is about his company (Cocona, Inc.) it fails WP:CORP for lack of in-depth coverage. Lastly, if this article is about the polymer fabric technology (37.5® Technology) that he invented, again it lacks notability because it fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. See also WP:PRODUCT. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Three articles at high beam. Many articles at Scholar. he is published a lot. A number of books. Could be developed further. When I went to Bing.com I found many pages of articles. Just the first page:

Gregory W. Haggquist - Businessweek.com www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=... Mr. Gregory W. Haggquist co-founded Cocona, Inc., in 2000 and serves as its Chief Technology Officer. Mr. Haggquist served as Chief Scientific Officer at Cocona, Inc ... Gregory W. Haggquist | Wikiwand www.wikiwand.com/en/Gregory_W._Haggquist Gregory W. Haggquist, Ph.D. is an American Polymer Photo-Physical Chemist, and Chief Technology Officer of Cocona, Inc. He is the inventor of 37.5 yarn technology, a ... Gregory W. Haggquist Reviews | TrapTek, LLC Employee ... www.hallway.com/management/gregory-w-haggquist-reviews Click to read Gregory W. Haggquist Reviews, employee of TrapTek, LLC, working there as a Co-Founder and Director of Technology. Rate and Review Gregory W. Haggquist ... Gregory W. Haggquist - academic.research.microsoft.com academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/20633993/gregory-w-haggquist View Gregory W. Haggquist's professional profile. Publications: 10 | Citations: 7 | G-Index: 2 | H-Index: 2. Interests: Physical Chemistry, Polymer Chemistry ... Gregory W Haggquist, Inventor, Longmont, CO, US www.patentbuddy.com/Inventor/Haggquist-Gregory-W/7572953 Gregory W Haggquist's Inventor profile, Longmont, CO, US, , 17 patents/applications from Mar 01, 2001 to Feb 21, 2015, 45 forward patent citations, PREPARATIONS FOR ... Gregory Haggquist, Cocona Inc: Profile & Biography - Bloomberg www.bloomberg.com/profiles/people/17889437-gregory-w-haggquist Gregory Haggquist is CTO/Co-Founder at Cocona Inc. See Gregory W Haggquist's compensation, career history, education, & memberships. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that those are directories, press release info and the like. They are not what builds notability. In most cases they are not considered to be independent from the person/company. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete perhaps as none of the listed coverage seems to suggest even minimally better applicable notability. DGG, would you have any familiar insight and comments about this? SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 17 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) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Treatment Des Concierge

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

Article written by paid contributor, which appears to fail the notability guidelines. What coverage does exist seems to mostly be based solely on press releases. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have checked the Hollywood Reporter article listed as a source, using Nexis. The extent of the coverage of The Scott in the article is as follows: "(Interestingly, the facilities report a recent decline in cocaine addiction among local clients, with a rise in prescription pain killers. Says Kat Conway, owner of The Scott,"I have people that come in on 15 to 30 medications," including Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Oxycontin and Percocet.)". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's not even anything for general notability. Notifying tagger TheInformativePanda in case they're interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I understand Wikipedia has many policies, but I have noticed that other private rehabilitation centres, such as Passages Malibu, have a Wiki article. I do not quite understand what the issue with this one is. Please let me know.--Kalina3112 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is the subject's notability, Kalina3112. To summarise, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If there are similar articles that fail to meet this requirement, then they will have to be looked at, but their existence doesn't really have a bearing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've checked Passages Malibu and it cites some sources that go some way to demonstrating notability. For example, this, this and this cover the topic in some depth. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. --Kalina3112 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging me in this deletion. I feel that at this present time, the article mostly reads like an advertisement and really does not belong on Wikipedia, unless it it pretty much completely rewritten. TheInformativePanda (talk) 00:24, 10 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 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert with no evidence of wider notability. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to consist of promotional content only. Nothing to suggest notability, and no citations that would establish this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:13, 19 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 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Zingaro

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

I have no access to the two quoted sources but it looks most unlikely that they are either robust or independent. It is difficult to believe that a modern American artist has no evidence of notability on-line. Nothing in the text suggests notability. Unlikely to pass WP:GNG on the evidence given. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a news search Zingaro + enamel [19] and a google search that shows gallery representation. [20]. I suspect that this one just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zingaro is a key agent in the historical perpetuation of the vitreous enamel medium (see 'Vitreous Enamel" and 'Fred Uhl Ball.') He is a rare master of the artistic medium and has trained several others who are soon to be worthy of Wikipedia recognition. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Rubberbandlady (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)rubberbandlady]] comment added by Rubberbandlady (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Rubberbandlady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are primary. I fail to see significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet typical criteria and only a handful of news hits, with barely a mention. Not notable. Aeonx (talk) 17:14, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarra Iziah in der Mühlen

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

There are no specific criteria for dancers, but does not appear to meet WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE or even WP:GNG. Time has been left for improvement, but only unsourced additional information is being added. Melcous (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the links under references those are top news portals which cite all the details from her career , not to say compared to other wikis of dancers where there are no references at all and a general lack of modern/urban dancers on Wiki? References regarding Martha Graham dance or Millennium dance are not public but diplomas where submited when those articles where writen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.22.41 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may well be right, but I'd also suggest she read WP:OVERTAGGING: peppering the article with redundant {{citation needed}} inline templates on each and every statement could be seen as disruptive editing, when a single {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} template atop the article would suffice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There has been an unreferenced tag on the article for months, however, and all kinds of information keeps being added without references. I was trying to show the editors that these kinds of claims require sources, but accept that there may have been better ways to do that. Cheers. Melcous (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the refs do seem to be in Croatian so I've added it to the above. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 4 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 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some Croatian refs turn up. - There do seem to be very few hits indeed once blogs and social media are excluded. Ideally we'd get a Croatian speaker to check this a bit better, but it does look rather WP:TOOSOON for this dancer. The tag-bombing however wasn't necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMODEL applies. If there is any sourcing, she must qualify for an article according to what I read in other AfDs. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The whole point is that there exactly isn't any sourcing. Advertising herself on social media isn't sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:31, 17 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) 01:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol +

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

I'm unable to find RS to show this meets GNG — Rod ^talk 15:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bennett (businessman).— Rod ^talk 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's hardly even general notability here. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 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 17:29, 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 13:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete challenging to search for the topic on search engines but I couldn't find anything. Based on the page it clearly fails the notability guidelines, just two non-independent citations and the topic is not likely to be notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to find any evidence of WP:N being satisfied. This seem to be part of a small set of self-referencing articles with no indication of notability from independent sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 23 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. As noted, this was misplaced in the first place. If the redirect needs to be deleted or changed that should be discussed at WP:RFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Purpose

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

The phrase "General Purpose" on its own clearly should not redirect to the famous vehicle, but rather deserves a page of its own as a notable idiom. Silas Maxfield (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, this is misplaced. Redirects should be discussed at RfD. Regardless, keep as redirect because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and "general purpose" is common phrase, not a notable idiom. No objection to repointing the redirect to a different page or even turning it into a disambiguation page if there are other notable destinations for this title but I do not believe that a page solely about the common phrase could meet Wikipedia's policies. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for folk-etymology, and that's exactly what this GP nonsense is. Anmccaff (talk) 23:48, 3 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 17:29, 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 redirect to circumcision. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circum fetishism

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

Unreffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. I found one reference fairly quickly, it definitely seems to be a thing. (no judgement from me yet on whether there's going to be enough significant coverage for it to warrant an standalone article though). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of sources — Genital Cutting: Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements (book), US National Library of Medicine, Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice (book). I've added them in to the article; there's probably a bit more information that can be sussed out of them and added though. There's probably not enough out there for much more than a stub, but it does seem to be enough of a thing to be included here. Discant X 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .... Well hey whatever floats your boat!, I found a few booksunder "Circum fetish"[21] and "circumcision fetish" [22] (Unfortunately my laptop being a dick (no pun intended)). –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICKDEF. Carrite (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psst. I think you meant WP:DICDEF. Discant X 23:34, 10 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 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are not enough in-depth sources for an article, hence fails WP:GNG. Possibly the psych crews will produce articles in the future, in which case it could be considered WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to circumcision, or failing that delete. The article is basically one sentence, stating that circumcision is the object of a fetish (what isn't?). That's just not enough substance for an article. Sandstein 12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not dictionary. Not to mention it's a 1-sentence sub-stub. If you think there's an article that can be written here, write it in draft space and see if it flies. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 23:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fetish —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Circumcision article and Delete. And by merge I mean add one sentence on it since that's basically what this article is :P --Quadraxis (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It has 3,650 search returns on google books and way more on google news which is more than some other fetishes on wikipedia. Furthermore, the large number of times such a term or related concepts come up on blogs, forums and other mediums of online discussion makes it notable for me. Who here can honestly say they never heard of for instance the phrase "uncut guys" or "unsnipped guys" used in an objectified manner? Contrib raati (talk) 09:27, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Barnes

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

Subject is a meteorologist for WeatherNation TV; according to their "Meet Our Team" page, one of 11 people with that title. A Google search for ("joel barnes") turned up a number of WeatherNation pages, Facebook pages, and pages from KCWY, the Casper, Wyoming, TV station for which Barnes worked before going to WeatherNation. However, I found no significant coverage of him by independent sources; and very quickly in my search, I started hitting lots of other, decidedly non-notable, people with that name. Refining the search to ("joel barnes" weather) and ("joel barnes" meteorologist) produced similar results: lots of sites connected with WeatherNation, KCWY, or Barnes himself, but no coverage in any depth by independent sources. It's possible that appearing on a national TV network automatically confers notability. However, the specific criteria for notability at WP:ENT seem to rule against this, calling for "significant roles in multiple notable... television shows" [italics mine]. Given that, I'd say that Barnes fails WP:GNG. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The article was created by User:Jbarneskcwy, which username suggests that the creator and the subject might've been the same person. In this case, promotional intent might've been present. This is of course not in and of itself grounds for deletion, but has some bearing on the validity of the creator's belief in the notability of the subject. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 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 17:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't contain any claim to notability or any sources that approach WP:GNG, just a person who has attended certain schools and played certain sports and has a certain job. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RESUME Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 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. Three weeks is ample time to make a case for keeping and no one has done so. Jenks24 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver Black

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

Non-notable person. Tagged as possibly non-notable since August 2015. Even if notable would still require a fundamental rewrite to meet wiki standards. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long will this discussion be open? Time enough for all editors to see? Also, I need to study how to prove he is notable and then provide proof. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally for at least a week. You can demonstrate notability, and therefore deserves his own article, by showing he's received significant coverage in reliable sources. See WP:N and WP:BIO for more details on what would qualify. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if actually needed as there's hardly much to suggest solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 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 17:19, 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 no consensus. Insufficient policy-informed opinions to establish consensus. "MORE KNOWLEDGE, NOT LESS" doesn't become a better argument because it's in all caps, and conversely this is clearly not an attack page, or it would have been speedied. Perhaps this can be renominated some time later. Sandstein 12:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obama chmo!

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

The article suggested that because of the fact that Wikipedia is not a coatrack. It is possible that this is an attack page. — _cheloVechek / ^talk 00:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "attack page" in wikipedia understanding; it is reporting of the "attack" in real life, just as the article Holocaust denial article is not a propaganda of denialism. Neither it is a coatrack; all text is about the same subject. The nom probably confuses the term with the concept of WP:TRIVIA (a collection of random examples). But again, WP:TRIVIA allows trivia covered in reliable sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not the home of every 'anti-person' slogan ever thrown out into the ether; silly attempt to make a phrase a thing by 'but it has an article here' reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no we are not a home to "every anti-person" blurb, only to "notable anti-person" blurbs. So, what is your argument that this phrase is nonnotable? - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep satisfies WP:GNG. IMO notable as a quirk of Cold War II. Stupid, but wikipedia has plenty examples of encyclopedic stupidity. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 3 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 17:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a pretty trivial attack page on Obama. There is one RS, but it seems that it reports the slogan as a symptom of a bigger problem, Russia's young and poor want a war against the US. Neither sounds very realistic, rather it sounds like a propaganda campaign. If 3 very reliable sources outside of Russia report it, maybe it might be notable. But "there's other stupid stuff on Wikipedia" doesn't sound like a reason to keep it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I genuinely looked up "chmo" that I saw somewhere else, and this was the ONLY factual result I got. MORE KNOWLEDGE, NOT LESS! (The main reason I quit editing for you clowns, too many anti-knowledge deletion queens!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.179.86 (talk) 01:16, December 16, 2015‎ (UTC)
Delete for policy reasons. As far as chmo goes, per IP editor 72.129.179.86 Wikipedia is not a dictionay, as far as the info in this article goes Wikipedia is not news. --Bejnar (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is not news anymore. And neither it is a dicdef. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ping}Altenmann}} Old news is still news. Could you explain your reasoning? --Bejnar (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topper Shutt

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

Local weatherman. Does not meet GNG or any lesser bio notability requirement John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief meteorologist in a top 10 market, Shutt is often referenced/quoted/consulted by the Washington Post. Shutt has also served on science review boards for the National Science Foundation RadioFan (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 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, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Evans (poker player)

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

Doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria or WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 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, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Experience (U2 album)

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

Album has not been released nor does it have a confirmed release date. It is in progress with very little news and is nearly a year away from released (based on the latest comments from the band and their photographer). U2 is also notorious for talking about in progress albums and not completing them on time, so this seems to be WP:CRYSTAL. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to U2#Songs_of_Innocence_.282013.E2.80.93present.29. Right now there isn't entirely enough out there to justify an album. There are announcements that it will release, but not really much else. What has been said is pretty well covered in the main article, so I think that for now this can redirect there. When more information comes out (track listings, confirmation of recording, etc) we can always restore this and flesh out the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, thought that was the same album title. Still, we could probably rationalize a very brief one sentence line in this section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of times that the band provided incorrect information about their previous album should be enough to dissuade any writer from publishing nonsense like this. This is not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 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, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clear WP:CRYSTAL case. Latest supposed release date is nearly a year away. Who knows, perhaps they will eventually release another album, and perhaps it will be under this name--anything is possible. Even assuming all that , I don't see that there is anything particularly useful about it in the U2 article that we should be sending readers to it. Yes, I know they are an established band and all that, but WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no deadline to create this article. If and when the album is released, we can recreate this properly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:29, 18 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 12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Tomasini

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

Non-notable businessman. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Who said he is a businessman ? He is a Trader and a well known Financial Analyst.

Keep : https://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Emilio+Tomasini%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=JdJWVpnTMYaqjwOcyYHwCA and https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Emilio+Tomasini%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=cr&ei=ENJWVtCVI4i2jwOm0aTwCA proves his notability. Alwayssmileguys (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all non-RS profiles, not enough RS to support bio. Also, incredibly promotional, could be speedied for that. Usterday (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep He is more than just a businessman. Most businessmen are not adjunct professors of finance. His book Trading Systems: A new approach to system development and portfolio optimisation is still in print six years after being published, which is very good for a financial guide, what is more it is still being cited by scholars, and still being positiely reviewed, for example here. Also most businessmen aren't advisors to mutiple banks and money-management funds. The coverage is a little slim, but given his occupations, seems about right. --Bejnar (talk) 04:44, 9 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, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with Bejnar here. More than just a businessman with the authorship and adjunct professor of finance. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the coverage is simply not there. The only source that is not primary are the Il Resto del Carlino (where the person is quoted briefly in an article that is not about him); other than that the sources consist of profiles of him from a few different places, and articles he has written. Being an adjunct professor does not confer notability (see WP:PROF for notability requirements for academics) and being an advisor to banks and funds also isn't in itself a sign of notability unless there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources - which, again, there does not appear to be. There are millions of books that are in print six years after they were published. The book that Tomasini co-authored (a fact that wasn't mentioned in the article) gets very few hits in citations indices. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in the article are not independent cf his publisher, his university, a commercial site he is associated with (TenPointTrading) and several sites that look like PR sites. (One even says "You are currently viewing the SEO version of TRADERS´ English I October 2014."). He fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 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) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan-Magdalena

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

inadequately reliable sources for this photographer is is apparently in the early stages of their career. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 05:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and browsers easily found some links but they're all simply like the currently listed, trivial and not convincingly better. WP:TNT at best until a better article can ever be conceived. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 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 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 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 redirect to Vinča culture. Well it's been up 3 weeks and not much discussion has happened and to be honest I don't think any more will happen either so wrapping this up as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Vinča

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

Fails notability. The two sentences are now present in the main article Vinča culture (see image). Zoupan 13:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 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 17:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vinča culture. This figurine is well-enough known that a standalone article could more than likely be written about it but, as the nominator says, the image is contained in the suggested target article and the image's caption there is effectively identical to the text of this article. So a redirect, at least for the moment, is good enough. PWilkinson (talk) 13:36, 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. Sandstein 12:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne Antrobus

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

Fails notability. PR page for non notable person, created and majorly contributed to by COI/SPA. Very little relevant info shows up in searches. Rayman60 (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has one published book (of little note) - the other publication is a pamphlet. Has appeared in an hour-long BBC show based on her work. So verging on notable, but barely there. LaMona (talk) 16:41, 3 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 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy later if needed as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions (two articles from 2007 and 2010) at News, hardly much for a considerably better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 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} 07:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ego (religion)

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

Cutting out the Freudian setup and an unsourced/dubious section about dreams and elephants, this article is just an unsourced comparison of the human ego to the Hindu concept of ahamkara, and a primary-sourced mention of the term "ego" being used in a 1970s self-help book. A proposed 2013 merge with Ahamkara seemed generally opposed for being an imprecise comparison. I'm not sure there's anything worth saving here. McGeddon (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Pixarh (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 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 17:12, 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. Unopposed deletion. Redirect at editors' discretion. Sandstein 12:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Doerner

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

Not a notable drummer that has been a stand-in on a number of occasions for Helix (band) and who plays in a Supertramp covers band. Karst (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing more than a few mentions, not even generally notable for the guidelines (GNG). SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he was a significant member of one notable band we would likely redirect. If he was a significant member of two notable bands we would like keep (and trim to sourced content). He seems to have been a significant member of both Helix ([23]) and Saga, so I would favour the latter option. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to Helix. It appears that for health reasons he was unable to make a significant contribution to Saga, who also appear the have been going through a number of line-up changes in the six years that he was in the band. As per usual, searching for sources in relation to drummers is proving difficult. In that sense, it fails WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 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 17:12, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Indian Constitution Day

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

No References. TheInformativePanda (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that it looks like someone Google Translated it. A Sentient Sock (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 3 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 17:11, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Italy, Rochester

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

No sources. Appears to be self-advertising. TheInformativePanda (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should just point out that there has been no effort to at least inform the article creator, directly or even via a few maintenance tags, what it might take to WP:PRESERVE the article. Instead, it was tagged for deletion within 3 mins. of creation. Somewhat WP:BITEy and not a very informative Panda, if you ask me. The article is not in great shape and there are few reliable sources that I can find. WP:GEOLAND does require them for "populated places without legal recognition," such as this neighbourhood seems to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to who ever wants this page to be deleted.... why would you feel the need to delete it? everything written is factual information. There are websites that can verify the information I am just not familiar with how this stuff works yet and I haven't figured out how to add links and pictures and stuff like that. but I assure you that this information is all real and up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RochesterItalian88 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @RochesterItalian88: and welcome. This is sort of what I was saying above. It's a disappointing introduction to Wikipedia, I know. The nominator is right that right now it doesn't look as if it meets WP:GNG, I'm afraid. And I say that as someone who used to live in Little Italy, Montreal and still goes there all the time to shop and drink espresso. So it would be great if you could track down some reliable sources, articles or books, that talk about the history of Little Italy in Rochester. I do suggest we WP:Userfy this if RochesterItalian88 wants to keep working on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the "about us" link found on the website provided by the article author, this is a self-named area for marketing purposes which, as-yet, does not even have official recognition from the town itself. Article appears to have been created as part of campaign to gain recognition. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source, the recognition needs to come first, then we can develop the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 3 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 17:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy->AfC From what is here it isn't possible to know if there is a chance of developing a WP article from this. I must say that the "about us" link gives me doubts. But this is a good situation for AfC, where the editor can get help creating an article proposal that at least follows WP style. LaMona (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's been no improvement and I was unsuccessful last month in finding much that would elevate this neighbourhood to the level of notability required here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think that's right. The project to develop a restaurant/entertainment district has gotten some press [24], but whle I wish them luck, there need to be more sources before there can be an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:27, 18 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) 09:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jinna Mutune

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

Promotional article with no references or categories MB298 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches only found passing mentions thus hardly notable and even satisfying general notability guidelines (GNG). SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG, easy. I rewrote the article to remove the promotional content. She appears regularly in the Daily Nation, Kenya's national newspaper. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my stance to a keep after reading the rewritten article. The references are much better than those in the original article (in fact none) and the subject in question has received much coverage from various news sources. MB298 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 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 17:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The improvements to the article by User:Megalibrarygirl establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 13:40, 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} 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Grand International titleholders

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

List of three title holders, sourced only to the organisation's own website and a blog. What little material there is in the list is also already included in the article about the pageant, Miss Grand International, so merging is not an option. Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as there's hardly much and nothing to suggest a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. . Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable fancruft - If anyone really cares about this crap they can merge it otherwise it can deleted with fire!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 17 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criteria A11 and G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iberanunion

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

Not in english, delete or move to the German wikipedia Supercell121 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even translated, it is unsourced and appears to be alternative history, possibly WP:MADEUP. Unless someone has a different reading of this, it might qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A11 (obviously invented) or WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I put the CSD template on the article, or just leave it as a AfD discussion?--Supercell121 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can try, but admins often won't do a speedy while an AfD is running. Probably easiest to leave it as it is, and use a speedy on the next similar case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tend to agree it's a hoax or joke, but it clearly does not pass WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up nonsense. GNG? Not even close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 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 redirect to SR-22 (insurance). I agree that this can and should have been done with need for a heavyweight process like AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of Financial Responsibility, Auto Insurance

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

Fails WP:ORG. Recreated article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 12 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} 07:26, 17 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) 05:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance): alternative terms for the same document ([25], [26] and many others): Noyster (talk), 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance) as per Noyster, as clearly they both are about the same subject. Nothing new to merge. Probably should have simply been done to begin with rather than prodding and taking it here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Days of Our Lives cast members. Redirecting as per consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sean

AfDs for this article:

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

Page fails to meet the criteria for BLP's. One source does not meet the criteria for the general notability guideline, especially for a BLP article. Page was deleted one-year ago, and actor is still only generally notable for the same one role. WP:NACTORstill plays a part in this. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Days of Our Lives cast members as that's where WP:BLP1Es of this nature tend to go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete would closely follow as there's simply no signs of a better notable article here. Notifying PRODer Stefan2 and all of the past AfDers in case they're not aware of this new AfD: Bearian, Thomas.W, Princessruby, Benjamin Mako Hill, Rms125a@hotmail.com, AmaryllisGardener and Jersey92. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to Draft:Christopher Sean. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't redirect articles to drafts. See WP:R2. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: Meant to change that but forgot. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Has appeared as Gabriel Waincroft in at least four episodes of Hawaii Five-0 (season 5) as well, so there's two notable TV shows to satisfy the clause in NACTOR; a redirect to DoOL won't cover it: Noyster (talk), 11:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article creator was not notified of this AfD: Noyster (talk), 11:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - True. However, it is only stated it's "polite" to do so, not a must.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of cast members. Insufficient sustained coverage, so BLP1E applies; but the search term is a realistic one, and he is mentioned in the cast list, so that is the logical target. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Yaremchuk

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

Does not fulfill a single criterion of WP:NACADEMICS. No coverage in independent sources. kashmiri ^TALK 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Clinical Professor at Harvard Medical School. Extensive Google Scholar presence. Published scholarly/technical book(s) through Saunders/Elsevier. Nominator obviously hasn't complied with WP:BEFORE and absurdly tried to speedy the article. There's some puffery in the article that could stand to be cleaned up, but this deletion proposal is thoroughly misguided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being listed on Google Scholar is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability, neither is authoring academic papers (do you know that there are more than TEN THOUSAND academic papers published every single day?[27]) Nor even being a professor - Wikipedia is not a directory of professors. Why don't you read WP:NACADEMICS and argue based on official Wikipedia rules? kashmiri ^TALK 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you advance a substantive argument for deletion, rather than casting aspersions against an editor who disagrees with you? The fact that you tried to speedy a Harvard Medical School professor indicates your grasp of deletion policies and principles is suboptimal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: without needing to spend a lot of time on this, I note that he fulfils C5 of WP:NACADEMICS and likely fulfils C1 (has lots of published papers, which seem genuinely to have a fairly large number of citations). The page seems to be overly promotional and maybe even copied from his website, but I can't see much doubting that he is a notable academic. JMWt (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does NOT fulfil C5 (he is neither a distinguished professor nor a named chair) or C1 (no independent reliable sources on the person are quoted). kashmiri ^TALK 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list of publications was added to the profile. A lot of them were published in the National Center for Biotechnology which is a government organization. I strongly disagree with the comment on the absence of independent sources. There are sources from Boston Globe, Huffington post, Harper's Bazaar, Boston Magazine and others. Those are some of the largest regional and national publications Dan Z-V 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Dan Z-V: [COI content, Redact personal information per WP:OUTING]. ^TALK 18:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
@Dan Z-V: Can you please confirm that you are not associated with any company among whose clients is or was Dr Yaremchuk? This is to avoid suspicions of conflict of interest. Thanks, kashmiri ^TALK 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep probably falls just the right side of notability, but the article seemed very much an advertisement for his services. I have toned down the promotionalism - no one needs to care about his private practice office address, what he does in his private practice, or what his licenses are, they are irrelevant to his only claim to notability which is his academic work. Putting that crap back in would seem to be a concession that his academic work is inadequate to establish notability, which would mean a delete - let's hope the article's promoters understand that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Best Doctors in America" [28] is a sham, I'm afraid. Investigation They list thousands of doctors who are solicited to send in information, then use the "award" to advertise themselves. It's paid for by hospitals, as I am able to understand, who subscribe to it and then can use the accolade in their advertising. e.g.. I'm going to assume that all doctors understand what this is about, and that it exists for promotional purposes. Therefore, seeing it in a WP article, to me, smacks of promotion. YMMV. LaMona (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim. He's notable- based on the citation record, wghichproves him an authority in his field: 332, 257, 256, 237, 229, 231, 217, 225, .... Chief of Craniofacial Surgery at MGH is a very high level position; Clinical professor is not quite the same as Professor, but at Harvard Med, it means more than it might elsewhere. However, and its a big however, the article is promotional -- Best Doctors in America is indeed pretty close to meaningless, the contents listing his various keynote speeches is not really encyclopedic content, and since WP is not a place for academic CVs, we do not include full lists of published article--only the top 5 or 10 so, going by the citations . The intent is probably promotional -- I'm frankly extremely skeptical about the advertising purposes of articles on plastic surgeons--but he's notable enough to be worth fixing the article--something I rarely say nowadays about promotional articles. But the argument for deletion, which should have focussed on that, instead makes rather absurd claims about lack of notability. (If this is by some chance a COI article, it shows the usual deficiencies of COI editing, not knowing. what to include or exclude. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Just for future reference, are you saying that would or would not meet C5 of WP:NACADEMICS? I may have misunderstood what is considered to be a "distinguished chair". I agree with all the other comments about the promotional nature, the faux awards and other crap on page. The fact is, though, he has a position at a top medical school and has a lot of well cited papers, which should surely be good enough. JMWt (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a distinguished chair means something like "The John Jones Professor of Surgery at ... ", These endowed chairs are a rank normally given to the most distinguished of the full professors and are considered a sufficient proof of notability. Merely being a faculty member at Harvard is not necessarily notable. Being a full professor at Harvard is not technically one the factors that make for automatic notability, is a position of sufficient rank that I have never seen one not considered as notable. Harvard and similar universities are a much better judge of notability than we are, and they never give full professor rank to someone who is not a major leader in their subject. (Personally, I thin we might asc well simply say so in the guideline, but at the present consensus ifs to require the additional evidence of status as an expert, which for a scientific researcher, is proven by the citations to their works.)

As for the promotional nonsense, I have just rewritten the article to remove it, and to add such things as his basic biographical data, which the editor didn't realize was relevant to an encycopedia. My experience--and that of all other editors here who work with promotional articles-- is that it is extremely difficult to persuade promotional editors to write in an encyclopedic manner; they have their own style and their own purposes, which are not compatible with ours'. This gives us a choice: either rewrite their articles and do their work for them, or reject the articles. I like many of us used to routinely rewrite when there was notability, until I like many of us got exasperated by the need to do good work for free, for which others were getting the money to do poorly. I will now do such a rewrite only under exceptional cases, though some of my colleagues are still trying to rewrite them all. (the exceptional circumstances here are first, that he is really highly notable, and second, that the article was irrationally attacked. Were I to !vote to delete it, I'd be endorsing that attack. DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - I think it would not be unreasonable to remove the long list of publications, given that the "most cited" are already there. And to fix some of the citations. Feel free to revert me if you think this goes too far. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, DGG, good that you did the work, see your point, especially that I believe one of the contributors here is actually paid to promote the said doctor over the Internet. Still, being professionally linked to the medical field I can't really imagine that speaking at three conferences is worth mentioning at all. I know dozens of professors, world-class experts in their field (neurology), who routinely speak at at least 3-4 congresses every year, and this fact being part of normal academic routine is not really something to be proud of! They of course do not yet fulfil WP:ACADEMICS so they don't have their acrticles on WP. Here, someone has spoken at three congresses in his/her career and has it in the encyclopaedia. Are we serious? Or this is just a poor attempt to lure patients to a private practice, as apparently was the original aim of this article?

I have taken a look at the page of Harward Medical School and the only mention of Dr Yaremchuk is that he is a part-time professor of surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital, along with nearly 6,975 other teaching and research staff.[29] I don't believe Wikipedia's aim to be a directory of all professors even at the General Hospital in Massachusetts and for this reason the bar for WP:NACADEMICS has been set much higher. No idea why you call this "irrational".

Your edits, although helpful, at the end could not make this dr notable. kashmiri ^TALK 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I differentiate the rank Chief of Craniofacial Surgery from the " 6,975 other teaching and research staff." I'm not going to comment on your editing, except for restoring a few points. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose every department/unit in any hospital in the world has its chief, and working in this capacity alone does not confer notability for an encyclopaedia. Even being head of department at a government ministry is normally not sufficient per WP:POLITICIAN, even less being a head of unit at a local hospital. 257 citations for a 38 years old review article is nothing unusual in medicine. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous. It's easy to say "every department/unit in any hospital in the world has its chief, and working in this capacity alone does not confer notability", but you know perfectly well that we're discussing a hospital which "conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the world, with an annual research budget of more than $750 million [and] is currently ranked as the #1 hospital in the United States by U.S. News & World Report".[30] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And? How does this override WP:NACADEMICS? This is an article not about the hospital but about a doctor. And keep further personal comments to yourself. kashmiri ^TALK 23:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 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} 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duma Optronics

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

Contested PROD

Lack of independent sources as to its notability. They make some interesting things. This makes a page that looks more like a portal to optical techniques. There's nothing here that speaks to the company, or why this company doing its everyday business is WP:NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few searches only found a few passing mentions, hardly notable and acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:42, 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halime Sultan

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

Appears only in a Turkish TV drama "Muhteşem Yüzyıl: Kösem", not mentioned by academic sources, likely never existed. kashmiri ^TALK 11:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. The nominator provides nothing to back up their argument, and makes no effort to refute the substantial reliable sourcing provided as article references. There may be a dispute over the appropriate name for the article, and there may be questions about the use of the historical drama as a source for article content, but neither of these content issues justifies deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a well-sourced article and if she was Valide Sultan she's obviously notable. Would the nominator like to specify why they think she never existed? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's up to the article creator to prove that the person did exist. The sources quoted do not mention this, and the name seems a speculation as well. See also article's Talk page. kashmiri ^TALK 20:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've checked every print source cited have you? Obviously she did exist (everyone has a mother!) and was Valide Sultan (and is therefore notable) - it seems to be only her name that's in doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep @Kashmiri@Necrothesp@The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) This person actually existed and the sources also mention her. For example take a look at page 127 of The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire published by Oxford University Press and written by Leslie P. Peirce which is also used as a source on this article (click on the book's link). It is stated that: "When Ahmed's brother Mustafa became Sultan in 1617, his mother - whose name is unknown to history - received 3000 aspers as Valide Sultan although her mother-in-law Safiye was still alive. However, she received only 2,000 aspers during her retirement to the Old Palace between her son's two reigns; during the first months of her retirement Safiye was still alive, perhaps a neighbour in the Old Palace, receiving 3,000 aspers a day." So she existed but her name is a speculation. And if I were you, I wouldn't take those comments on the talk page so seriously. That person claims to be of Ottoman royalty and has deleted all the sourced information based on his own views. I have reverted his edits so many times. Keivan.f^Talk 08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the academic sources mention her existence but not her name, now we have to decide about this article's title. Actually the name of this historical figure is "Halime" in historical drama series "Muhteşem Yüzyıl: Kösem". I don't know from where the writers of this show have found this name but I think we can't rely on it as a source. Keivan.f^Talk 08:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've checked every print source cited have you? Obviously she did exist (everyone has a mother!) and was Valide Sultan (and is therefore notable) - it seems to be only her name that's in doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Yes, she absolutely existed and was a Valide Sultan (Queen Mother) during her son's reigns. But it seems that her name is unknown. Keivan.f^Talk 12:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, in fact, you're not questioning the notability of the article, but its title? In that case it should have gone to WP:RM and not WP:AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Well actually I haven't given this deletion request. User:Kashmiri did it. Now that it has become clear that this person existed and was notable enough to have a separate article, I think this request must be closed. Keivan.f^Talk 16:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, but my comment appears to have been moved from the person I was actually replying to, which confused me as to who I was talking to. I was initially replying to Kashmiri's comment immediately beneath my first post and you moved my answer, which is most strange - not sure why you did that! Was it a mistake? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved my post back to the place I originally put it, hence the striking-out above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Eh, sorry. It was just a mistake. I was trying to move my own comments below the notes that you had added and it seems that I had become confused about the actual place of your message. :) Keivan.f^Talk 19:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems reasonably well sourced. If there are issues on the name, take it to RM. 1bandsaw (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As regent of the Ottoman Empire, surely she was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As valide sultan, she was the most powerful person in the Ottoman dynasty after the sultan himself. Letempsviendra (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Agaston-Masters (a source of this article) for Mustafa I, it reads "son of Sultan Mehmed III and an Abkhazian royal concubine, whose name has not been determined" (p.409). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:50, 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 Speedy delete. Blatant hoax, text lifted from Löffler's medium Fences&Windows 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrasekhara's Technique on Microbiology Techniques

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

A somewhat elaborate hoax that tries to integrate itself to other existing articles. Several issues with the video have been pointed out at the help desk by Maproom. Several details do not match up as the sources sound fishy, the real Rachapalem Chandrasekhara Reddy is a linguist or something instead of a biologist, and it is claimed that the language spoken on the video is Manipuri while Reddy speaks Telugu language. There is probably something else too. The page creator (Rijavano99) should explain himself here. This page might be considered an attack page as Rachapalem Chandrasekhara Reddy evidently exists as a person. WP:ATTACK, WP:NOHOAXES Ceosad (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubiquity: Inviting ubiquity to join this discussion, as he has also had some doubts about the sources at User_talk:Rijavano99. Ceosad (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources is easily available. Various errors show that the creator of the article does not understand the supposed subject. The video does not show a scientist discussing a technique. Chandrasekhara is not a microbiologist. I don't know what's going on here, but this article is not what it purports to be. Maproom (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here's what I know:
- The third reference exists, but from 1979, so could not possibly attest to the notability of the technique.
- The second reference exists, from 2000, so it could have just barely had time to mention the technique, but it's searchable on google books and a search on "Chandrasekhara" turned up empty, so probably it does not attest to the technique's notability.
- The first reference (the AstraZeneca workshop proceedings) exists, but not online. There is an employee at AstraZeneca named Chandrasekhara Reddy. He is probably too young to have created the technique in 1999. He does not resemble the man in the video or the linked professor Rachapalem Chandrasekhara Reddy. If this isn't the same man who allegedly developed the technique, it is a big coincidence. This may indicate a hoax. Or it may indicate that "Chandrasekhara Reddy" is a common name, and we can't trust the link to Rachapalem Chandrasekhara Reddy.
- The linked professor is a professor of literature, and has his own web page. I find it extremely difficult to believe he is also an expert in microbiology. The editor claims that "the professor is also a scientist, and writes scientific literature too," but I could find no evidence of this. If true, it would be rather astounding, and I would expect evidence to be plentiful.

The presence of the same-named person at AZ makes it seem like this could be a hoax, but I'm not sure it is. However, assuming good faith, I believe that the editor has made an incorrect linkage, which leaves us with an article about a technique developed by an otherwise non-notable person. I do not believe the references, as analyzed above, support the notability of this technique, so I think we should delete it purely on the basis of not meeting the general notability guidelines. If the editor wants the article to survive, he needs to provide more and better coverage of the technique, and also coverage of the amazing man who is both an award-winning literature professor and a well-known microbiologist. ubiquity (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources actually do exist? Interesting. Maybe there is a chance that it is just failing GNG. @Rijavano99: could you provide more information about the content of the sources, so that we can properly assess notability of your article? Ceosad (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Astrazeneca employee Chandrasekhara Reddy's activities, as listed at that page, are unrelated to the culture medium which the article purports to describe. Maproom (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy is real, and the video of him discussing his technique is testament to this. He is a microbiologist genius. --Rijavano99 (talk) 19:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrodactylus leptorhynchi

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

Move to https://en.wikitionary.org/wiki/Gyrodactylus leptorhynchi. 333 -blue 11:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me that a real species is by definition notable, in that it will appear in books and academic papers. Which it does. I don't see any real question as to notability, but suspect that enquiries need to be made of a relevant WikiProject rather than here (for example if this name does not have wide acceptance yet, etc). JMWt (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not a dicdef. We have articles on all living species. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

No indication of notability; sources are all D&D game manuals. A WP:BEFORE check turns up the usual. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), where it's already listed. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. However, it's not easy to research, as both D&D and Greek mythology are popular topics. If there's any third-party, secondary coverage, it can be briefly summarized in pegasus. I don't think we need an embedded D&D fansite inside Wikipedia when Wikia is perfectly suitable for such topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 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 10:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NinjaPirateRobot. Artw (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NinjaPirateRobot. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:07, 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) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PixlBit

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

The article doesn't seem to have any reliable sources or significant coverage about it. Also nearly all of its sources are from its own website. GamerPro64 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are references, but all brief mentions and there are only a few. Nothing to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 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 10:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found no considerably better sourcing, only a few passing mentions especially at News. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Hare (author)

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

Non-notable author. Notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam seemingly found some links but nothing surprisingly better. Notifying past users DGG and Oshwah. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for. He's written quite a miscellany. This may not be an autobio, for he's a published author, but some parts were almost indecipherable. I've cleaned up what I was sure of. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he's written some books, but that's not enough for notability. There is one review in Booklist, and zero in Kirkus. No impact. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I'm with DGG here. Not only do libraries hold his books, his film noir books get cited in other books about film noir. A proquest search on the title turned up a published review of his history of the Holy Land.(now added to page) I hope the article creator will return with more references, because searching for someone named William Hare who writes on divers topics is like looking for a specific rabbit in Farmer MacGregor's garden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this has in the last day become a cringe-worthy press release, supported by primary sources. If it's kept it'll need a lot of clean-up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:35, 24 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) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I commented as the IP above, and edited the article to remove a lot of unsourced content). I can't find much, or any, substantial coverage about the author or his books. Inclusion in libraries doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, and if there isn't any in-depth coverage about him from WP:RELIABLE sources, it's difficult to see keeping this. I was probably mistaken to refer to this as an autobiography--more likely this was begun by a friend or a student as an assignment. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep.~~ Clearly a notable author, with many library holdings and there should be corresponding reviews. The format and the style are incomprehensibly bad, but ut's been partly rewritten already, and I'm rewriting it further. Not characteristic of student work; can't conceivably have been written by a published author themselves, so I remain piuzzled. But it can be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG I'm sure you didn't mean to vote 'keep' twice, and must have forgotten your earlier comment. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a feeling I'd seen it before .... DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An account persists in adding poorly sourced and badly written promotional content. I continue to remove the cruft, but each time I'm led to question whether the author's works, represented in libraries, are enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is, and in this respect DGG may be ultimately authoritative, but lacking extensive coverage of the author or his books, this reminds me of artist bios that use a listing of gallery shows to support notability, in lieu of objective coverage. At any rate, the recurrent unacceptable edits may induce a request for page protection, and in the short term muddy the ability to properly assess the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture (US band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable band article as my searches found nothing better at all to suggest solid notability and the other band article As Friends Rust has also been nominated (even the third band Morning Again also seems questionably notable and improvable). Notifying author HDS and past users Davidwr, Michig and Lugnuts. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per first AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now pending more information - the two musicians mentioned as "notable" in the first AFD are arguably not notable. I don't have time to assess this right now, but it would help a lot if we could point to two (or more) musicians in the group and say they clearly met WP:MUSIC and keep the article, OR if we could point to all but one of the musicians in the group and say they clearly fail to meet WP:MUSIC and delete the article (or find some other reason that the topic is notable other than "it has two notable members"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I haven't had time to research this but if this AFD closes with just the nom, my comment, and the comment above it, I recommend against a "keep" close and recommend for a close of "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 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 10:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the author of this article has been informed of the issues regarding this band's notability in 2008[31] and has been nominated for deletion in 2008[32], 2010 [33] and 2015[34]. The author has done naught to improve the article to the point that it has actually had an AfD article to a conclusive Keep. Lack of activity on the AfD discussion pages indicates a lack of credible interest in this article as opposed to the ambivalence of those taking part in the conversations. User:HDS has a bit of a history creating Walled Garden articles relating to obscure bands in the Florida hardcore, punk and metalcore scenes that fail to pass WP:NMUSIC, and referencing the "What Links Here?" page shows that. Abovethestorm (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage (none that I can find, really) in reliable, secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 18 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) clpo13_(talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjana Puhar

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

I originally merged this article to America's Next Top Model (cycle 21) as this model does not have any other notability other than appearing in a reality TV show but this was reverted without explanation. The primary reason for nomination is that this contestant's notability has never gone beyond the aforementioned show and being a murder victim does not mean she will pass WP:BLP1E, meaning that her notability is restricted to reality TV and nothing else. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition that this article was created by a sock user, so I am to assume that this qualify for speedy deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the many (substantial) edits by others, G5 does not apply. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 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 10:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 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} 07:25, 17 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RenWeb

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be deleted because it is written like an advertisement and has no educational value Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination for the user, who posted it on the article's talk page. ansh 666 10:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It may be written as an advertisement, but the notability of it is clearly established because it is used by many schools. In veritas (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches found nothing noticeably better than links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a solidly noticeably notable article as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 17 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) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Current article is nothing more than a promotional brochure. Regardless of notability, per WP:DEL4, this article needs to be blown up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arvinder Khaira

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

I can only find mention of the subject in one of the three refs and that does not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results for this person at Google News. Even The Tribune source used in the article just mentions his name. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER presently.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently not notable even generally for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trespass (clothing)

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

As with my PROD "Seemingly questionably independently notable and improvable article as my searches only found several mentions at News, browsers and Highbeam so far but none of it to suggest better here. I'm not sure if the parent company is perhaps better notable as I haven't closely search for that one but WP:TNT at best for this current article."., my searches found several links but simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article here and it is at best known for being connected to parent company Jacobs & Turner. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - clearly the owner Jacobs & Turner is less notable than the Trespass brand, which is seen on many British shopping streets. There are an abundance of good quality secondary sources about the owner, usually headlined as being about the brand. That said, I'm not sure whether Trespass needs to be merged and redirected to the owner (which doesn't yet have a WP page, as far as I can tell) or the other way around. There surely don't need to be pages about both. But simply saying that the brand is not notable but the owner is (whilst the owner doesn't have a WP page) seems counter-intuitive.

JMWt (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I read this !vote I assumed there must be a Jacobs & Turner article, and I instinctively agreed that they should be merged (probably with Trespass Clothing as the surviving article, since it is the better-known name). But as you can see from the red link, Jacobs & Turner doesn't exist, and neither for the record does Jacobs and Turner. There is no article to merge with, as far as I can tell. Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the NOM says owner is more notable than the brand as a reason to delete but the owner doesn't have a WP page. A merged page should exist, not just deleting. JMWt (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search shows articles by the BBC, The Herald and Daily Record among others. This makes it quite obvious that the article should be kept. Neodop (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A retail chain with 150 outlets in the UK is notable in real life, and we should expect to find it notable here too. I was easily able to find a significant amount of substantial coverage from impeccable sources. Two obvious ones that aren't in the article: [35] [36] Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is an advertisement as it now stands. Perhaps it could be rewritten and merged with the parent company article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no parent-company article. Thparkth (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, only arguments for deletion are the usual WP:UGLY and the inaccurate WP:BEFORE by the nominator, and none of them are really convinging. Considering the current and the additional available coverage, it's just a matter of cleanup and a clear keep. Cavarrone 19:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it stands has issues - it needs improving to be more up to date and less advertorial - but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The brand has 150 outlets in the UK and is notable as a retailer for that reason. Additionally it was the supplier of clothing to a major international athletics event. Neiltonks (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say being the official outfitter of a major international athletic event certainly tips the scales to notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found above. Obviously worthy of inclusion. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addy van den Krommenacker

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

As mentioned with my PROD here, my searches found several links (at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam) but they're all passing mentions or otherwise unacceptable for better notability here. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obvious WP:BEFORE failure by the nominator (an AfD and PROD enthusiast), and not the first time by him. Looking at his history [37], he nominated the article exactly THREE MINUTES after I deprodded the article with the rationale that there were "tons of significant coverage (which were) easily available". About the subject, a little extempt found in a minute (some of them are archives containing multiple articles), [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. If requested, I can provide more (there are about one thousand recent news about him in Google News, and a lot more searching in archives). There are also several interisting book sources available, including the book Dutch Translation in Practice by Jane Fenoulhet and Alison Martin which describes him as "an internationally acclaimed figure in the world of haute couture". The article itself already contained a significant reliable source (an extensive, 8-pages-long entry in the Atlas of Fashion Designers). I fail to see how he could fail notability. Cavarrone 09:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Cavarrone - it's another John Fluevog situation where people who actually do searches end up casting serious doubt on the nom's claim that proper WP:BEFORE searching was carried out. Mabalu (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Typical of SwisterTwister's lazy rapid-fire AFD noms where their "argument" is basically to just dump a link to Google search results so it looks like they actually did a search for sources beforehand (which this particular nomination kinda disproves, as if they had actually done a proper look at the results they would've seen that this was NOT getting deleted). Sometimes their noms are valid, but then things like this come up and make the nominator look really bad. Sorry, I've raised this concern in other AFDs much more politely, but given that SwisterTwister rarely seems to come back to AFDs after nomming, I may as well say exactly what I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayScientist (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RailwayScientist I appreciate the flattery and the implication that you agree with what I said, but I would appreciate it if you didn't copy and paste my statements as if they were your own, particularly the bits that are more personal to me such as "Sorry, I've raised this...." onwards - at least attribute my words to me, please. Thank you. Mabalu (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are "rapid-fire" Mabalu are articles that needed attention long ago and as Cavarrone also seems to be baselessly criticizing this, I actually searches, yes, but none of it seemed better for a notable article. BTW, if you're simply going to criticize all of my AfDs as I "dump" all these links including criticizing my need for "punctuation", perhaps you shouldn't comment at all. If I never come back to answer, it is because I don't have an answer or it is not obviously going to help at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you do nominate plenty of articles that should be deleted, (and I have agreed with you on a number of AFDs), unfortunately you do have a habit of SEEMINGLY doing a basic search on Google and without even bothering to look at the results, just copy the URL to the generic search results and dump it in your nomination as "evidence" that the article should be deleted. Linking to a page of search results doesn't exactly mean that we see the same search results as you do. The reason I get frustrated is that if you had genuinely bothered to look at the search results for some of your nominations, you would have seen at a glance that they wouldn't be getting deleted - so why waste everyone's time going ahead with the nom anyway? I apologise for the tone of the comment above, but when there was no response to that, I decided to just let it lie - until User:Cavarrone said they'd noticed it too; and then RailwayScientist for some reason decided to copy and paste what I said from the Fluevog AFD into this debate. I acknowledge that I was needlessly harsh, and apologise for the tone, but when you say "this is the best I could find" and link to a page of Google search results, how are we supposed to know which of the results you are talking about? How do we even know that the results on the page we are seeing are the same results you yourself saw? I tried over and over again in previous AFDs to explain this and ask you to be more specific about the sources you refer to. Unfortunately, it took RailwayScientist copy-pasting over my harsh words from the Fluevog AFD to get a response. When basic searches immediately pull up many sources, then someone clearly didn't do a very good job with their checks beforehand. The only reason for nominations such as this, when so many sources are readily available to show notability, appears to be to force other editors to improve and rescue the articles - but AfD is not cleanup. Mabalu (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninnghizhidda

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

Nothing at all to even suggest minimal general notability and improvement and I still confirm and echo my original PROD: "Although German Wiki has three sources (two of them with URL links), there's simply hardly much here to suggest better notability and improvement and my own searches also found nothing better than a few passing mentions. I also considered changing to a redirect to that mythology but this word seems unlikely as a search.". SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 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} 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources with which to expand the article. Seems to be a fairly obscure band. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:04, 17 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonin-ish

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

PROD was removed by Cavarrone and I still confirm and echo my original PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article for which I found nothing better than an Allmusic page and a few other passing mentions". SwisterTwister talk 08:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 10 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} 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too obscure and even the passing mentions in English mention how obscure they are. They haven't been active since around 2009. The only borderline notable member is the bassist, who went on to play for what can, with a great deal of charity, be called a pop group [46]. Someone please let this article meet its end with dignity; prolonging its existence is needlessly unkind. Jun Kayama 06:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Smith

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

I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Searches found several links particularly Books, News and browsers but all mostly unusable coverage for notability and also mostly local news, so all in all, there's no convincingly outstanding improvement here yet.". SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the coverage I indicated when I deprodded it? You didn't find any of that? --Michig (talk) 17:41, 10 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} 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems he was on America's Got Talent and got lots of coverage because of that, although there is other stuff as well, including: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Some of that is pretty in depth so I think it would meet the notability guidelines and would be enough for a full length article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided by FuriouslySerene. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:57, 25 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth British Virgin Islands

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

Is a National beauty pageant winner always notable? I submit NO. They had 1 event back in 2013 with 6 girls in gowns and swimsuits. The facebook page [52] and wix website (56 visitors to date?) barely confirm the existence of this "organization" and the rest of the mentions are press releases, an expired fundraising campaign [53] etc with this post [54] being the best source I could find. Some of the claims in the very short article are not true or dubious (headquarters location, traditionally how it works (with one event to date) etc. Delete this or every local parade, bake sale, and soccer game qualifies for a WP article its very own. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as there's hardly even much of an article here and it hasn't changed much since starting in April 2014 so that certainly says something. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 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 12:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rocque (politician)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful candidate for a U.S. House of Representatives seat - not in the sense of losing the election, not even in the sense of losing the primary, but in the sense of "fail[ing] to obtain the requisite signatures to participate" in the first place. That is, apparently, the entirety of the subject's political career. It's difficult to fail to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN harder than that. My searches didn't turn up anything for GNG, at least not about this Michael Rocque, and the two references on the article are (1) a article about someone else that mentions his existence in passing, and (2) the candidate's own (now-defunct) campaign site. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about what happened here, the article was started in 2008 at a time when he was still an actual candidate in the primary. Even that, obviously, still fails WP:NPOL as it stands today, but in 2008 there was still some unresolved debate about whether unelected candidates were notable or not — so that goes some way toward explaining why this exists. There is definitely no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability here, however — even the candidate who actually makes it all the way onto the final ballot doesn't automatically get an article for that anymore, let alone "candidates" notable only for losing, or failing to even get into, the primary race. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's seemingly nothing to suggest even better general notability here. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon (Italy)

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

No references. No demonstration that the Italian channel is anything different than the global Spacetoon channel. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 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} 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the correspondent article on it.wiki (created by the same user) was speedy deleted today, treated as an hoax. All author's edits were reverted. --Supernino (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The channel on Italy it never existed and was never born in any platform. The entry only contains untruths. --Stupoto (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercatus Energy Advisors

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

Insufficiently sourced article about a probably non-notable financial company. Sources appear to be great in number but poor in quality. Entries in listings and directories generally are not valid indicators of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 07:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found several links but perhaps not enough for a considerably better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found the same links on news, books, and Highbeam. Although they are in reliable sources, they are all brief mentions or quotes from company execs. I also went through the news on its website [55] which yielded the same results. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'm curious to know how you guys think a company is "not-notable" when they selected to advise the Office of Inspector General of a major US govt agency regarding an issue which encompasses many years and BILLIONS of dollars (see citation 8)? As a US taxpayer I think it's notable that my fellow citizens and I know what companies our government is doing business with then it comes to multi-billion dollar issues. It looks like they are/were in the running for a similar project competing against the likes of McKinsey & Company, arguably the most reputable consulting company in the world (see citation 9)? Boomer1985 (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see these two guidelines - WP:NOT & WP:ORG. Also, as articles for deletion discussions are based on consensus, and not vote count, it would be helpful to show how they meet WP:ORG by providing relevant sources showing in depth coverage of the company. I have looked, but have not found anything other then brief mentions of the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NCORP; cannot seem to find reliable secondary coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:03, 18 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential capital

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

Unsourced article about a possibly non-notable financial organization. Salimfadhley (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 as this seems obvious. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 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 keep. After considerable work on the article, the earlier delete !votes concern's appear to be mostly addressed. Nom has changed their !vote. Consensus is it is now in good enough shape to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Brain

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

This article seems to synthesize a number of frequently deployed brain-related metaphors, and presented the hodge-podge as if it were an actual, single concept in management theory. The article has become a bizarre coatrack for a bunch of unrelated concepts in management or business administration that all use the word "brain". It's hard to say whether this stuff meets our notability guidelines because this article dosen't actually seem to be about anything. Salimfadhley (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NEO - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Userfy - I don't want to unduly discourage a new contributor - userfy this until it is up to scratch - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Move to Organizational metacognition - has been improved to the point of keeping - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A synthetic topic; self-promotional. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the article concludes "The corporate brain metaphor is not a management theory and does not have a single agreed definition for use. The corporate brain metaphors and analogues have been criticised as a hodge-podge which is neither notable as a concept or a management theory in itself." Which is pretty much our consensus here. However, let's be more respectful here regarding this work, which appears to be based on his own published paper in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (see ref # 28), which is a peer-reviewed academic journal. I don't think it's our place to dismiss Cleverley's work as "bizarre." However it is a case of WP:NOTESSAY and I would agree to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the articles initial creator, I have made significant changes to address the concerns raised and also submitted a title change from Corporate Brain to 'List of brain related metaphors in management theory' as suggested by User:Salimfadhley. I disagree with David Gerard as the article contains original research, see JASIST reference, which is a peer reviewed tier #1 journal in this area. I have taken out a reference to my blog website and other changes to address the self promotional theme raised by Alexbrn, leaving only the peer reviewed JASIST article and over 20 verifiable published sources from a number of authors since the 1930's. I agree with the comments on 'essay' style in places so have tried to make it more factual based on comments from Shawn in Montreal where the essay style appears to be the primary objection. Appreciate if you could take the time to have another quick look. I am new to Wikipedia so I apologise for making basic mistakes PHCleverley (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy again as I simply accepted this because it seemed notable and acceptable but if it's not fully set, simply return to draft and userfy where it can still be worked. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support agree, the article may be saved given some additional work. --Salimfadhley (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou SwisterTwister. I am hoping when the editors who originally raised objections look at the revised article as it is now this will be acceptable as-is or only requires minor revisons. PHCleverley (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help revise the article, but I can't tell which parts are drawn from which references in some cases.--Bored (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly esoteric stuff for most of us, and while editors at this Afd are encouraged to do what they can, I also think that we might benefit from expert attention from someone in Prof. or Mr. Cleverley's field. I've tagged it. Unfortunately the WikiProject for the field I think is closest is only "semi-active." Would anyone like to add other wikiprojects to the template? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added two other Wikiprojects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive science seemed the most promising to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business using almost exactly the same text. --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC):[reply]

Comment - after rereading this article, it still seems to be an article survey about a bunch of mostly unrelated metaphors. The only unifying factor is that all of them allude to brains or animal cognition in some way. Only one researcher (who is also the author of this article) has seen fit to synthesize these previously unrelaed concepts. The only thing stopping this from being blatent WP:OR is that the original research has presumably been conducted within a unversity or school of management. --Salimfadhley (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thankyou for the critique and editing help. Building on this, the article has been completely rewritten and a request put in to rename it to Organizational Metacognition with a link from Organizational Learning. All mentions of the 'corporate brain' metaphors have been removed as they only seemed to cause misunderstandings from editors on what the article is actually about. The concept is based on peer reviewed published research from more than one author and source. The article is no longer essay like. I have also added the category of Information Science PHCleverley (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An incoherent essay, with a title added on as an afterthought. Maproom (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Keep. The article has been totally rewritten, former criticisms no longer apply. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you please clarify Maproom whether you are referring to the old article text, or the current article which has just been completely rewritten and has a page move request in for a name change to Organizational metacognition? If so, can you please tell me which parts you feel are essay like (opinions rather than information from peer reviewed sources) and why you think the title is an afterthought? PHCleverley (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHCleverley (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the article as it was when I posted. It was titled "Corporate Brain", and was four sentences long. Maproom (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article now is very short and to the point as I seem to be falling foul of essay objections. The page is no longer called the corporate brain and all mentions of this have been dropped, a move request has been submitted to rename it Organizational metacognition. It now simply reads (supported by verifiable references and links to other pages) *Organizational metacognition is a concept related to metacognition, organizational learning and sensemaking used to describe how an organization 'knows what it knows' [1] and how teams learn to learn[2][3][4]. Poor organizational metacognition has been observed in enterprise search where searchers and management show surprise when presented with how poorly exploratory search tasks are performed in the organization.[5] Feedback on this is appreciated from you all. PHCleverley (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The older version is gibberish, the newer version is a few empty sentences, both are OR. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thankyou 209.211.131.181 but I do not understand why you say the description of Organizational metacognition is empty sentences when it has been used by numerous academics who have published in very good peer review journals. Have you read any of the articles by those authors I cite in the article? Please provide evidence for your statement that the article is not verifiable using published research. I agree the article can be further developed by other editors and scholars in the future, perhaps from this talk forum. I have kept it deliberately short to avoid any concerns of essay style at this time, but will add more detail as your complain appears to be in part because it is too short and does not go onto details. PHCleverley (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Empty sentences" means what it sounds like: the few sentences currently in the article don't actually mean anything, they only look like they mean things. That's not a useful foundation for an article. I haven't read any of the sources yet, but I will. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as revised and with move to Organizational metacognition. The original article was a mess focusing on the brain metaphor. Metacognition is a real thing, and Google shows over 1500 hits for "Organizational metacognition" including many books relating to the topic. The current state of the article is a valid stub, and the new topic focus may aid redevelopment.

Note: PHCleverley citing your own work is a Conflict of Interest. Editors can be sensitive to the possibility of self promotion, as well as concerns that an article must present a balanced summary of the field rather than focusing on the research of one individual. For example the current sentence citing your own work seems reasonable in itself, however I can't imagine a random editor would have selected that as the first-and-only sentence (after the topic definition) to represent the field. If you continue to develop the article then I urge you to focus on independent sources. If you need to cite your own work then I suggest you use the talk page to post the new sentence and source-cite, with a {{Request_edit}} template for another editor to review and add. COI edit requests tend to be backlogged, but someone eventually gets to it. Alsee (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thankyou Alsee. Its the first positive comment I have received, so I must be learning from the comments made on this talk page! I have made some additions to address the comments of 209.211.131.181 in particular to add the concept of Deutero-learning which is the third type of Organizational Learning identified by Argyris and Schon. As a researcher (I have made no attempt to hide my identity) I guess I have an inherent bias towards my published work, but your point is taken I shall remove the reference to the published paper and follow the workflow you suggest. Thankyou. PHCleverley (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could some of the editors who originally suggested 'delete' for this article, please have another look at the revised article in light of the significant changes made, request for article name change to 'Organizational metacognition' and comments from Alsee who has suggested a Keep outlining their reasons. In particular Salimfadhley who raised the deletion request, whether the changes made meet your approval and address the objections originally made. This would give time to make any changes if there are any further suggestions or objections as the deadline for deletion is Wednesday. Thank you. PHCleverley (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looked, the new version should be deleted or merged somewhere as it is two sentences that say nearly nothing useful - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thankyou David Gerard for re-looking and providing feedback. I have added a new paragraph and dipped into the literature to provide more details on this subject. I hope you find this more useful. PHCleverley (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really getting the idea this article is completely unfinished work in progress and should be put back to your userspace until it's ready for prime time - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the feedback. This is my first Wikipedia article, I did read many of the guidelines and was bold. However, it is fair to say the past 5 days has been a learning experience for me and not always a comfortable one as I seem to have broken almost every rule in the book. I have one editor who feels the last version was a 'keep' - enough on a notable subject to continue, so this gives me encouragement. I have added a lot more detail since then to meet your objections and I hope it will be developed by other editors, rather than just me. I think there is enough there that is useful on this subject. If you think I need to write more then I will return back to my userspace but I would still have the challenge knowing how much to add to make you feel it is useful David Gerard. PHCleverley (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the 'Organizational metacognition' article is due to be deleted tomorrow I have added further text to the article as the only outstanding objection I am aware of appears to be the opinion from at least one editor that there is not enough useful content, although another editor is of the opinion that the article is worthy of a 'keep'. The article has been significantly extended overnight (without making it verbose) and now has sections on Learning prototypes, Terminological ambiguities, Significance and Examples in practice. It is supported by 19 references (most of them peer reviewed) and links to other Wikipedia Articles. It would of course (like most articles) benefit from further development over time. I have looked at other comparable Wikipedia pages that have existed for some time without change, in similar areas (organizational science) and I am of the opinion the article is comparable, there are some broader topics that have more descriptions, but there are certainly many pages on concepts that have less. I am available today and would have time for one more edit, should there be something that an editor wants to see that they feel is not in the article. PHCleverley (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be a completely different article than what I originally nominated, and as such is probably worthy of additional review. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Alexbrn, Shawn in Montreal, Maproom, David Gerard to take a fresh look. This is a whole new article, well developed, well sourced, on a legitimate topic, which will move to a much better title/topic after the AFD resolves. Alsee (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better. The writing seems unclear to me, but it's much clearer on the concept and is talking about a real concept that's out there in the wild. I've changed my opinion above to "move to Organizational metacognition" - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: now a completely different, and much improved, article. How are we handling this? Will there be a new AfD discussion? Should I strike my earlier "delete" !vote? (The mismatch between the article title and the bolded phrase in its opening sentence is a problem, but I understand why it is that way, and don't see it as important,) Maproom (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - PHCleverley has turned this around. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Maproom: I don't believe the AfD can be withdrawn at this point (since there are delete !votes registered; see WP:WDAFD and WP:SKCRIT), but you can certainly strike your earlier !vote if your opinion has changed. The closing administrator will take the new information into consideration when closing the AfD. clpo13_(talk) 09:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Thankyou everyone for your patience. I'm pleased I got there in the end with your help. PHCleverley (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you, PHCleverley, for your own patience, and the work you have done. It is great to see it turned into a useful article. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Quick question folks. Is it my responsibility to delete the notice at the top of the article page with the old objections or do I wait for an administrator to do this? PHCleverley (talk) 11:12, 17 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} 07:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetex

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

Non-notable flooring product lacking non-trivial support. Spam applies. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is advertising. I wouldn't have disagreed with a G11 speedy deletion. Inconveniently, this name seems to have been used by several other commercial ventures, leaving many hits at HighBeam, but I didn't see anything there that appeared to be anything more than company-created publicity for the product.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 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} 07:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Singer

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 03:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I even isolated his name along with the movie titles he is "known for" and did not get anything useful for sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even generally notable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 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 keep. Article appears to meet GNG & consensus overall is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gwisho Hot-Springs

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

Unsourced article, cannot verify if this source passes our notability guidelines for a place. Salimfadhley (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable as per @Salimfadhley. Unsourced tourism promo. Quis separabit? 03:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This place is well sourced in books and academic publications. For example here, here, here, here, etc.

There is thus good evidence that this is an important site for tourism, for natural heritage, for archaeology, etc. JMWt (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources presented by JMWt (even besides the broken link) do show ample coverage satisfying WP:GNG. It should be noted to the nom that if they can't verify the sources because either there is not hyperlink or the sources are print-only, that doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. As per WP:GNG, print sources are valid and they don't have to be linked in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, should work now. JMWt (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JMWt and Oakshade above. This seems to meet our notability criteria and is backed up by valid 3rd party sources. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the instructor for the course, African Archaeology, in which the student who wrote this article is enrolled. I can vouch for the fact that Gwisho Hot-Springs is an important archaeological site even though excavated a long time ago and published "only" in print sources. It is, for example, described at some length in Graham Connah's book, "Forgotten Africa: An Introduction to its Archaeology" (Routledge 2004; see pages 22-24).Paffadt (talk) 17:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Bell

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Google search (even for "Bam Bam Band Washington" turned up almost no results. Article cites absolutely no references or sources, and is completely empty aside from the infobox. MB298 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's even hardly much here not even to suggest minimal general notability and I see why MB298 tagged it as A7. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an argument from the article's creator, posted on Talk:Tina bell, which I transferred to Talk:Tina Bell. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

I'm new to this, that being said, Tina Bell is a viable page. She died a couple of years ago, and we are using the page to help promote her musical contributions and authorship in the forming of the grunge sound. if you look at some of the references we have already listed, you will see that the drummer, Matt Cameron (Soundgarden, Pearl Jam) played in her band, Bam Bam, before her leaving the group and his moving on to play with other bands, ultimately leading to his success.

Her son, TJ Martin, is the first African American to receive an Oscar as a "director for documentary film", Undefeated, of which we are using some of his articles as her references, but most of the journals written about Tina are on microfilm (Seattle Post Intelligencer, and The Rocket newspapers) due to the years the band was active, and the sale or closing of both news journals. It will take me the weekend to get that information and figure out how to include it as a viable source.

I hope this is enough info to submit for an extension for this page. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 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} 07:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space. There isn't enough here yet to meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. I spent a bit of time trying to find sources, but I couldn't find anything significant. Although Bam Bam gets a few trivial mentions throughout digitized sources on Google Books, Bell herself isn't mentioned. Since the article is (or at least was) under improvement and there's a credible claim that offline sources exist (MB298 copied the post above from the article's talk page), I think we should at least consider the possibility of moving it to draft space, where the interested editors can work on establishing notability. Right now, the best it's got is inherited notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:25, 17 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Shmukler

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

Fails WP:BIO. This page was earlier created under the name Shmukler Valery Samuilovich and was deleted on A7 on 30th Nov. Requesting admin to SALT both page names. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator of article deleted AfD tag [56]. SALT seems like a necessary option. LaMona (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do not salt he is a prominent Ukrainian engineer and architect. He was awarded Ukraine's State Prize for Architecture in 1995 (a presidential prize only awarded to a few people per year) and is an Honored (Zasluzheny) Worker of Science and Technology of Ukraine, which if you know anything about the state system in the former USSR, Zasluzheny in any field means you have received international acclaim/results. I linked to other language articles. Reminder to OP to remember WP:BEFORE - you need to look for native language sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The State Prize of Ukraine in Architecture is a presidential award that seems to only be awarded to one person every year. I think that definitely satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. The university website also says he holds the title of Distinguished Professor, which probably satisfies WP:ACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me a clear keep in terms of notability via WP:Prof (prize indicates noteworthiness and is sourced http://science.kname.edu.ua/index.php/uk/home-8/laureati-derzhavnikh-premij). The article might need better referencing and editing but deletion and salting would seem to me entirely inappropriate. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep clear pass of WP:PROF#5 and WP:ANYBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:34, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spring King

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

Not notable unsigned band Karst (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly local band with no better signs of general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small time. Szzuk (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two reasonably good sources in the article already, and a quick G-search turned up these: [57],[58],[59],[60],[61]. Meets WP:BAND through non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 12:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there is sufficient non-trivial RS coverage to meet GNG, including sources mentioned by Sparklism and others. I've added additional sources to the article from Allmusic, The Telegraph, DIY Magazine, BrooklynVegan, and an NME EP review. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. Gongshow talk 20:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by sparklism, which let the subject meet WP:BAND and GNG in my opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:55, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio (game)

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

Card game sourced only to a Reddit post. I haven't been able to find any stronger sources for it. From the few websites that mention Cambio, it sounds like a folk version of the commercial card game Cabo (game), although it's unclear whether the designer of Cabo ripped off a backpacker game, or backpackers learned to play Cabo with a standard deck. McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:14, 17 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) 01:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qasimabad Chakla

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

A Google search did not come up with a page where the two words in the title of the article are used consecutively. Also the article is unsourced. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only contains one statement, which is unsourced and like the proposer I can't find any source to back it up. Neiltonks (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for it is utter nonsense, no such thing exists. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 05:23, 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. No consensus to delete - closed without prejudice to renomination if the article is not improved within a reasonable timeframe. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh

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

I cannot find any reliable, secondary coverage of this topic. I was thinking of boldly redirecting it to the page of the parent organization, but figured I'd do it via AfD so that it doesn't get recreated without sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trade unions are generally notable. This looks to be a pretty large one and has been around for nearly fifty years. Given its website is in Hindi it may be a good idea to do a search in that language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions in general might be notable, but we already have an article on the parent organization; Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. Does the subsidiary require a separate page? I would say not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be more of an autonomous union within a confederation than a simple subsidiary, so yes, I think it does deserve its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to pass WP:SIGNIFICANCE, although barely. The number of English-language sources is very low: [62], [63], and perhaps [64] (mere acknowledgement of existence). Might be more important for hi-wiki. kashmiri ^TALK 00:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now only if it can be considerably better improved and, if not, nominate again for AfD attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SwisterTwister, that is a very big "if." I didn't nominate this on a whim; a lot of my editing has been on South Asian political organizations. I searched quite a bit for coverage, and then sent it here when I found none. If you can give me some suggestions as to how improvements can be made, I will gladly withdraw the nom and make the improvements myself, since consensus here is tending towards keeping. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 17 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. After three relistings, there appears to be a consensus in favour of keeping this article. Renaming can be done through the normal channels if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Americans

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

For many reasons this article needs to be deleted. For example, the name "Pashtun Americans" is made up by an editor of Pakistani background who lives in Australia and who is now blocked indefinitely. I had to mention his information because he doesn't know about America. He copy pasted content from Afghan Americans and Pakistani Americans into this page and invented a new group of people who do not identify as such. There are no sources to back the name Pashtun American. In America people are identified by nationality, not by ethnicity, tribe or clan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The data source cited in the article supplies a number of speakers of Pashto. Is this really an article about Pashto speakers in the US and, if so, is that a notable topic? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pashto speakers in the United States are roughly 50% of Afghan Americans or a small percent of Pakistani Americans. As we all know that English becomes the main language of everyone in America, there is no purpose in labelling people by what language they spoke in their former countries.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename: These kind of articles are encyclopedic. 16,000 is enough population to make article. Maybe article can be renamed to Pashtuns in America or Pashtun Community in USA which will increase scope of article and those Pashtuns from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan living in USA but not citizens of USA can be included in this article.--Human3015^TALK 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The people do not self identify as Pashtun Americans, neither are they called Pashtun Americans by the government or by anyone else. So, it is a newly created term by a controversial editor who got blocked. Many ethnic Pashtuns may be offended by being labelled Pashtun Americans, instead of Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. It's an attempt to divide them based on ethnicity. It is also very complicated to verify and determine who actually is a Pashtun, many non-Pashtuns will be labelled as Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your !vote as you are nominator and you are not suppose to !vote, but you can comment. And yes, "Pashtun Americans" may not be a proper term here, thats why I suggested title Pashtun community in America. Any "XYZ community in America" is a valid and encyclopedic article. I am also agree on that images of people should not include in this article unless they self identify themselves as "Pashtun origin or Pashtun". Otherwise it is BLP violation to call them Pashtun if they do not self identify themselves as Pashtun. --Human3015^TALK 02:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably millions of different ethnic groups living in America, are we suppose to create separate articles for each and all of them? If the answer is no then why create an article for ethnic Pashtuns? Why single them out?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: Not exactly millions of different communities lives in USA. As per article Pashtun population is more than 16,000 in USA, but all of these are citizens of USA, there can be more Pashtuns IN USA who are not citizens of USA. This is enough population to create article on them. But they should not be grouped as "Pashtun Americans" because it is not official grouping, either they are grouped as "Afghan Americans" or "Pakistani Americans" or "Indian Americans" as per their origin in South Asia. So better title will be Pashtun community in the USA. --Human3015^TALK 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should first learn what community is. No such Pashtun community exists in the United States. They only identify selves as Afghan Americans, Pakistani Americans or Indian Americans, and they are scattered all over the country. I didn't say there are millions of different communities, I said there could be millions of different ethnicities, tribes, clans, etc., I hope you know Pashtun is ethnicity and not nationality or a race. Again I ask, what makes ethnic Pashtuns special than the million of other ethnic groups living in America to have an article?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user:Krzyhorse22 is ethnic Hazara who don't want to keep such articles about Pashtuns, This article should be not deleted, It an Encyclopedic and Informative article that should be kept on Wikipedia. And let me say that It does not matter that the article is written by a block user, We should see what are written in the article --2.89.234.120 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken comment of obvious sock probably made as block evasion. Looking at contribution history of IP shows that it is obvious case. SPI will not be useful here as CU will not connect any user to IP. Moreover, it is case of WP:OUTING. Editor has said below that they have never declared their ethnicity on Wikipedia then revealing it will not be good though it can be a wrong guess.--Human3015^TALK 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs), first of all you're evading blocks so your opinion cannot be counted. Second, I'm not ethnic Hazara, no where did I claim such.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Human3015 and articles mentioning "Pashtun American" identity [65][66][67] - this report says 100,000 Pashtun Americans (page 11, point 5) —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because some Pakistani editors used a wrong term in the past doesn't mean we must create a Wikipedia page for each of that wrong term. Creating a Wikipedia article for every wrongly used term causes confusion and misunderstanding. "Pashtun" is ethnic identity and "American" is nationality. It's not what others may wrongly call them, it's what they call their selves, which is Afghan Americans or Pakistani Americans. There are people who wrongly use Hindu American to refer to Americans who are from India, see also Sikh Americans for example. "Sikh" and "Hindu" are religious identities.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator states there are "many reasons" this article should be deleted, but it sounds like the central premise of their argument is that there is no community that self-identifies as "Pashtun Americans." However, a google search did, in fact, reveal sources that discuss a self-identified Pashtun community in America (see, e.g., this article from DAWN, this second article from DAWN, and this article in Newsweek, as well as other articles cited by other editors in this discussion). Therefore, I don't think deletion is appropriate here, but I do think this article should be renamed so that casual readers don't mistake this for an article about Americans living in Pashtunistan. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will be of low importance and relevance to most; however it's encyclopedic in nature and therefore completely legitimate in my opinion. Typical WP:BIAS towards minority groups. Aeonx (talk) 17:05, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Howard

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an actress, making no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR — as written, her notability is parked entirely on television commercials, one-shot appearances as minor guest characters in sitcoms, and webseries. And the sourcing isn't adequate to satisfy WP:GNG either — most of the "sources" are blogs, and the few that do actually count as reliable sources aren't actually about her, but just glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other topics. This is different enough from the original article that it doesn't qualify for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still isn't different enough to have attained keepability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The filmography section needs trimmed due to not having sourcing but the subject is notable based on being the host of numerous television shows. I am not sure there is a level - i.e., "strong" - of notability that is needed. Here is one that she hosts [68] along with another here [69]. The career section names a few more. One network is Bravo which is not a website. Not a fan of Bravo, but its still a cable television network. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular "level" of notability that's needed — the criteria for actors are vague enough that it's effectively possible to claim an WP:NACTOR pass for almost any actor who exists at all. But a Wikipedia notability criterion is not passed by asserting that it's passed — it's passed by reliably sourcing that it's passed. So there is a particular level of sourceability that's needed — but no sourcing has been provided here which even approaches that level, because it's sourced entirely to blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks and not at all to any evidence of reliable source coverage which is substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree that while her numerous TV/web appearances still don't add up to much industry coverage or recognition--and some of these blog source are of dubious merit---it seems wikipedia has allowed other pages to stand for performers of comparable accomplishment. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Comparable accomplishment" has nothing to do with it — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about what you can assert that a person did, but what you can verify in reliable source coverage that they did. It's even possible for a person to have accomplished more in principle than somebody else, while being less includable in Wikipedia because they generated less in the way of media coverage for it. A person can accomplish absolutely nothing of any real value but still get into Wikipedia anyway, if they're famous for being famous — and a person can have done genuinely important work but not get into Wikipedia for that, if their work was behind the scenes and below the media radar. If you're judging people on the substance of their accomplishments, for example, then I totally put Kim Kardashian to shame — but she gets media coverage and I don't, so she's in Wikipedia and I'm not. So two people of "comparable accomplishment" can also fall on opposite sides of that equation, if one of them got more media coverage for it than the other one did — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about the accomplishment itself, but about the volume and quality of sourcing you can provide to verify the accomplishment. Bearcat (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at least for now as it seems including with looking at her IMDb, that there's actually not as much as there could be for a better article, but more or less, the current version may be marginally acceptable for now. Notifying past AfDers Johnuniq, DGG, GB fan and S Marshall (the latter participated at DRV). SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many sources have been added; I consider none of them reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Her coverage fails WP:GNG, hence also fails WP:BLPNOTE. The lack of a claim to notability makes it difficult to find any basis in WP:NACTOR, and I didn't find one. The article says that she is well known for her television commercials, yet I could not find a reliable source to that effect, or really much of any source. Is it WP:OR? --Bejnar (talk) 09:49, 25 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Banks

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

Limited notability, an internet search mainly pulls up web pages run by the author himself, or pages selling his books. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Lousy, promo of an article. A total mess. However, a quick search on JSTOR shows that his book The Image of Huysmans was widely reviewed, albeit waaay back before Al Gore invented the internet. He easily passes WP:AUTHOR. User talk:Smileguy91, you probaly want to withdraw this AFD and just tag the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on the page (pretty clear form the visible footnote numbers). Creator apparently did not know how to create refs. Page needs someone ot fix the notes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy instead as my searches simply found nothing better than that one JSTOR link and that only suggests instead that the book is notable but perhaps not him (??). I would've also said keep only if the article was actually going to be improved though. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Antosh, R. B.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. Nineteenth-century French Studies, 21(1/2), 239–240. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23533410
Cevasco, G. A.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. The Modern Language Review, 87(3), 756–757. http://doi.org/10.2307/3733003
Knapp, Bettina L.. 1993. Review of The Image of Huysmans. The French Review 66 (3). American Association of Teachers of French: 510–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/397460.

There are more reviews of this book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge/rewrite into the book's article. One of his books got several academic reviews. This probably means that the book is notable, but I don't see why this would extend to him (notability is not inherited). Yes, there's CREATIVE 4c: ""The person's work (c) has won significant critical attention". Are several reviews in academic press sufficient? Perhaps. It's very borderline. I'd rather suggest this is rewritten into an article about a book, which could have a section about its otherwise unnotable author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this meets CREATIVE 4c as mentioned above with the multiple academic reviews. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book The Image of Huysmans is notable under #1 of WP:NBOOKS. I see no real coverage of him, especially in those academic reviews. Four reviews of one book do not create "significant critical attention". Continued discussion in reliable sources of the ideas presented and citation may. (GoogleScholar shows a whopping twelve citations to the book.) He has not had that kind of impact and has not won significant critical attention and thus fails 4c of WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- My impression was of very limited notability. However this is not my field of expertise, so I am not formally voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources, but they are clearly inadequate to provide verifiability for the content of the article. For example, cite [1] fails to verify the biographical information the precedes it. [2] is a reference to his book, which should not be a reference but in a bibliography section [3] is a review of his book, but possibly not about him [4] points to a symposium he spoke at, not a third-party source [5] presumably is a link to another book of his but it's unclear, in any case, not RS [6] is to liner notes that he wrote, not RS. So we've really got nothing about him. The book itself is cited all of 12 times in G-Scholar, held in about 250 libraries in Worldcat. Not an entirely bad showing, but nothing that would save this article. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough independent coverage of the author to show that he passes WP:GNG, and doesn't qualify under WP:NAUTHOR either. LaMona's and Bejnar's analyses, in particular, are pretty spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If the book is notable then write an article about it and redirect this there; authors do not inherit notability from their notable books. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Sweden

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

Unencyclopedic, circular reference, list of lists, and a misleading title. I would expect, per the article title, an article on ambassadors of Sweden, but it seems intended as a dab page of sorts. It also does not follow the precedent of the "Lists of ambassadors" pages, which list all current ambassadors from the stated country and are not used as dab pages. MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same editor has been doing alot of these similar lists, such as List of ambassadors of Brazil and List of ambassadors of Spain. There are similar, bad lists from other editors (List of ambassadors of Jordan). I'm not sure what to make of these. Bgwhite (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - I've prodded a few of them for now - if the prods are removed, I'll see if I can wrap them into this deletion discussion. MSJapan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't create lists to link to other lists. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the list of lists of lists. Opera hat (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely search term. Siuenti (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason in itself for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Please explain why someone using this search term should not get what they are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Lists of ambassadors of Sweden. As the nominator says, the current article title would lead one to expect a list of (current) Swedish ambassadors to other countries, which this is not. The ideal article would be one along the lines of List of heads of missions of the United Kingdom or Ambassadors of the United States, which give a list of current ambassadors, as well as links to lists of previous ambassadors to each country. Until such an article exists for Sweden, "Lists of..." is a more accurate title. Collating the current information is not useless, so deletion is not appropriate. Opera hat (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it may be a likely search term, as Opera hat points out, the title is misleading, therefore invalid. In addition, the nom's rationale is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The computer scientist in me is excited by adding another level of indirection (to any problem), but this isn't a CS class, it's an encyclopedia, and it doesn't work here. Strong objection to the proposed Lists of ambassadors of Sweden title; it may be accurate, but it looks too much like List of ambassadors of Sweden, and is bound to just cause confusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails selection criteria of WP:Stand alone lists, lacking stated criteria and lacking the support of reliable sources for those criteria. I agree with Onel5969 that while it may be a likely search term, the title is misleading. Because of its formatting it is only marginally useful as a navigation aid. In a reduced form it might better be part of a general article on Sweden's foreign relations. Right now the only function seems to be to add links to prevent other articles from being orphaned. --Bejnar (talk) 07:31, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamb and Dogra

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

This is another unsourced and non-notable battle which fails basic WP:GNG. There is no reliable source on google books, some passing mentions of these places don't deserve separate article. Human3015^TALK 22:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nonverifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is original research, if it was any notable it should have contained a few references or potential sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:41, 24 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) 09:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Towers

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

No evidence of any notability. One edit summary says "added a secondary source to appease the general notability guideline" but it doesn't even do that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in a couple reliable sources, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:28, 17 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Marijana

AfDs for this article:

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

Still questionably notable and improvable and especially time for another AfD since 2008 as my searches simply found nothing and I confirm my original PROD message: "Searches and the other Wikipedias seem to suggest she's not yet notable and found no coverage at all so it's a WP:TNT at best until a better article is available.". You've also would've expected some considerable improvement since not only starting in June 2006 or the 2008 AfD but especially at the current time now. Notifying the only still active AfDer and past user Drmies. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 December 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 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability; quite popular in Serbia/Macedonia and thus excessive coverage of her life and drama [70][71][72][73][74] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, SwisterTwister--I'll see you at ANI over that, haha. You know what's funny? I've been making the same kind of edit for seven years now. Wait, maybe that's not funny at all. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone to the left of me, to the right of me, above me, below me, Meets NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunatelly she is very famous in Serbia and Montenegro too. Every two days there is something in the newspapper about her life. Always drama. I doubt half of those readers know any of her songs tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepojevac (talk • contribs) 11:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RedBalloon

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

Alleged G11 article, however its been here for a while and there are enough references that this could be salvaged...maybe. Before we get there the community will have its say here. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually looked at some of these references a month ago. There are many that support notability including all of these on Google News [75]. The G11 nomination looks to be from an SPA IP editor, likely someone who has an issue with the company from a bad experience. Wikipedia is not a place to air their grievances. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a very well known online retailer that has received considerable coverage in the mainstream press.-Lester 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of valid refs. While it is somewhat spammy, I wouldn't say "exclusively", per WP:G11. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though reluctantly, and I would've also closed this as such as I'll have it open in case any other comments are available as although the current sourcing and coverage is not as solid as it could be, I would perhaps say save for now and nominate again later if needed especially for further attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Disney

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

Aticle has not show notability. I attempt to find enough to make it notable to no avail, such that I place what I could find at List of Disney TV programming blocks#Saturday Disney and change the article to a redirect. Another editor reversed the redirect, so I allow them time to find sources that perhaps I could not find with a notability and primary sourcing hat note. Since then only additional primary source (Yahoo 7 is owned by Seven Network producers of the show, co-hosts' blog (again a blog & primary), Throng which is a social media for media, thus a primary sources & social media and a fan site, "Cartoon Central Australia"/Members.optusnet.com.au are main sources for the article. Taking them out left the previous TV Tonight blog while run by a media professional has no editorial oversite to qualify as a reliable source and a single minor article from Sunshine Coast Daily about a then new host coming from the area. This article does not give in depth coverage of Saturday Disney to make it notable.

There is a sexist host section based on it listing the hair color of the hostess as a "position". Spshu (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The show passes WP:TVSHOW, since it's a long-running network show with national broadcast scope, a small amount of cultural importance (a number of Australian TV hosts got their start on the show), and a cursory search reveals plenty of RS. The problem is that you'd never know any of this from the article itself! And the nominator is 100% right about the hair colour thing... ugh. Lots of work needed. De Guerre (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Couldnt put it any better than De Guerre It's a long running show and the sources aren't that bad, GNews brings up a few sourceshttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Saturday+Disney&oq=Saturday+Disney+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&tbm=nws&q=%22Saturday+Disney%22 so notability's certainly there . –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That search turns up events at Disney World or Disneyland that occurred on a Saturday, other events occurring on Saturday that have to do with the Disney Company or passing mention of the actual Saturday Disney block (host attends an event or the about Carmen Ejogo being a host of the UK Saturday Disney). I found one about a visit to COFFS Coast not enough to write an article about. WP:TVSHOW still requires the show to meet the notability requirements, no article cover Saturday Disney significantly enough. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed the sexist listing of host positions by just listing "Host", still allowing readers to see the clear succession. As for the references, the show does not receive regular publicity through internet articles. This is pretty much everything and I've done an extensive internet search. However the show is long running and therefore notable. If you compare the page to Toasted TV, another Australian block, I think Saturday Disney is considerably better written. SatDis (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Long running does not make the show notable, although surprisingly that it does some how meet notability. The continued removal of the redirect to List of Disney TV programming blocks and the notability tag is what got the page here at AfD. I don't understand the need to not work with others to create an incorrectly sourced article fork over working to get it notable at a list article. What is or is not going on at another article, in this case, Toasted TV, is not relevant to this discussion. Better written does not make it notable either. Spshu (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 25 years on the air? Well passes WP:TVSHOW. Nothing more to add than we have to work with whatever the very insular Australian media community has to give us and what's been done here is the best effort. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. I've done everything I can for this article over many years. So if anyone thinks they can make it better then please do what you can! SatDis (talk) 00:22, 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. He is likely notable though, and the article can be recreated if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mugdim Avdić Henda

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

Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even anything noticeable for general and musicians notability guidelines. Notifying tagger Norvoid. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:57, 24 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 creating an article on the company at Troy Lee Designs. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Lee

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

This is difficult.

Google knows my IP address and my browsing history, and suggests links for this mamil to local bicyle shops that carry Troy Lee Designs bicycle helmets.
Google knows your IP address and browsing history, and will suggest links to your local off-road motorcycle or mountain bike shop.
"Troy Lee Designs" is a very well known (and verging on ubiquitous) brand of designers of motocross helmets.
A Google search for "Troy Lee Designs" brings up the business itself and "About 1,410,000 results (0.60 seconds)", but with very few indications of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This is difficult. Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Lee is the owner of Troy Lee designs.^[1]
Troy Lee recently did the artwork for the 99th Indy 500. ^[2]
Delete as I currently see nothing to suggest better notability even generally. Notifying tagger Loriendrew in case they're not aware of this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep My original CSD was based on a much rawer (see as CSD flagged) article than the current level. It still needs some clearing of primary sources (the subject's website). If there are that many hits to his product, as designer/creator I would think an article would be appropriate, although one for the business might be warranted before the BLP.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Troy Lee Designs. Troy Lee Designs http://www.troyleedesigns.com/company. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ . LA Times http://www.latimes.com/tn-cpt-et-0710-troy-lee-designs-20150710-story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete. Nothing in this article shows he passes WP:GNG. Notability of his friends do not impart notability to him. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources demonstrate notability for the product and/or business, but not, in my opinion, for the person. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 18 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. Noone has argued that this is sourced so there can be no policy based reason to keep this per GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The View Episodes

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

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced fancruft. ubiquity (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is tough. First, see Don't Call Things Cruft as that is not a reason for deletion. However, I am wondering other's opinions on lists. There is a list for television shows such as this - List of Scrubs episodes. There is NOT a list for shows similar to The View such as Today Show which leads me to believe live talk shows do not warrant episode lists. I cannot find anything to assist my decision so would love to know if there is a consensus for either one.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I was wrong to call it cruft. Let me state my objections without using the word:

There are no references or sources.
There is a vast amount of detail that would only be of interest to fans, and that information is readily available elsewhere.
The page only deals with Season 18, with no explanation of why that season is more notable than the preceding 17.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I appreciate that the editor is putting a lot of effort into this, but I wish he would re-target his energies. ubiquity (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirection of energy, but it is not up to us to choose where they edit. I believe that Wikipedia contains way too many lists, but I want to judge this from guidelines and consensus, not my personal feeling. In fact, List of Scrubs episodes as mentioned above is a "a vast amount of detail that would only be of interest to fans, and that information is readily available elsewhere." So are the hundreds of other episode lists for other shows. While there are no references in the article, there are sources about individual episodes. As written, it could probably be speedily deleted, but in theory of being a list of episodes for a show, I am going to judge based on consensus. Can you point me to anything in Wikipedia that talks about which types of shows warrant a list of episodes and which ones do not? That would be extremely helpful as I cannot seem to locate anything - but I am sure it probably exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete because it could be expanded upon by other editors adding in seasons 1-current if necessary Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm fairly ambivalent about lists like these, and yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however we literally have over a thousand of these types of pages. That seems to say there is broad consensus to keep these types of pages as being inherently notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all of those other lists are for dramatized series, for which episode lists outline the development of the series' narrative. There is a strong consensus for keeping those kinds of lists. Lists for talk shows, news shows, etc., need some special and specific justification. postdlf (talk) 12:43, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Peacock

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

Biography, sourced entirely to raw tables of election results but for a single news article in which he's a namecheck and not the subject, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that the topic was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before they became a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never won any elections, no sources except for election statistics.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 25 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) 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBuxa

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

The article fail GNG and Notability (web). I searched for the reliable Independent sources but i also fail to find any independent sources that show the notability of the subject rather than these ([76], [77], [78], [79]) four links which also seems self-published. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks independent sourcing to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 05:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article lacks notability, and it appears to have problems with WP:NPOV and possibly outright WP:SPAM. The only significant editor is a user who's only edit is creating the article in question. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Also only a handful of hits in news/secondary sources; and even then, barely a mention. Aeonx (talk) 17:16, 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 delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y2K – World in Crisis

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

Here's another Warren Chaney related article. Like the others, this makes grandiose claims yet a search provides nothing to show that this film is actually noteworthy. This is extremely sketch when you take into consideration that the article claims that the broadcast of this show won the film studio four Emmys. There's actually no real coverage out there to even confirm that this aired, let alone that it won or was even nominated for an award of this caliber. Even if the Emmys were regional, there'd be some sort of record out there for this film. The best I could find for this was this book note, but gives little information otherwise. I searched using Highbeam and couldn't find anything either and they usually collect news stories from the 90s, especially from outlets that would have recorded Emmy award ceremonies, even if they're regional.

Now granted, this released in 1999/2000, but if something is nationally broadcast and won several awards, there's going to be some sort of records out there to verify that this existed.

When it comes to the sources in the article, the issues here are similar to the other articles. There are plenty of primary sources, links like this one that don't actually mention the film, and other links that just so happen to not have links in the article - meaning that we cannot verify them. These unverifiable sources should be considered immediately suspect and quite possibly fake or unusable, given that the other articles have listed sources from outlets that either don't seem to exist or has never written an article about Chaney.

If by some chance this film does have sources out there, there's no salvaging this article and it'd be far better off to TNT this and start from scratch if that is ever a possibility, especially given that there are concerns of sockpuppetry amidst the other issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability as explained by nom above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, these Chaney articles are looking more like a WP:HOAX than anything else. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. It's not like Dick van Patten and Richard Roundtree are obscure actors. If reliable sources don't discuss this as part of their filmography, then we really don't have anything to say. Given the cast and the claimed awards, it's a bit odd that we're having so much trouble finding independent, reliable sources. If there are sources available for this, I agree that we'd be better starting off from scratch. There's too much promotion and poor sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another piece of piece of WP:SELFPROMOTION. Didn't we make it through the Y2K crises 15 years ago? If we didn't how is it that we are editing here? MarnetteD|Talk 05:01, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Nursery Rhymes

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

A video release from 1991 for which I cannot find reliable or significant sources to establish any kind of notability for it. There's a mention of the release in the Darren Day artice but provides only an Amazon link, but I don't think this warrants a redirect. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:RS. Not all straight-to-video films are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any reliable secondary coverage for this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 18 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 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Business (yacht)

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

This is not so much an article about a yacht, but a coatrack to talk about the "Gary Hart incident", an incident involving living people which is already covered in the articles of those involved. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah, memories, memories... The deliciousness of cheeky Presidential candidate Gary Hart in a "Monkey Business Crew" t-shirt with a blonde-not-his-wife on his lap, swilling gin and tonics on the cover of the National Enquirer... I still have that cover around in my stuff somewhere... Does that make the yacht notable? Eh, maybe... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 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 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have fairly generous standards about the notability of cruise ships, but probably not so much for purely private craft. On the other hand, here are some actual reliable sources about the boat: "Charter Yacht Has Carried Lots of Celebrities", Associated Press, May 7, 1987; "Marijuana Is Found On Yacht Hart Once Used", Philadelphia Inquirer, May 15, 1988; "'Monkey Business Yacht Goes Up For Sale", Ocala Star-Banner, January 2, 1990; a page in the travel book Oddball Florida, published by Chicago Review Press (2003). --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign. Its notability is all tied up with his self-destructive shenanigans. I'm surprised it isn't already mentioned in Hart's article. That was one well-known photo. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect, of course) to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign per Clarityfield. There is one reason, and one reason only that the yacht Monkey Business is potentially notable, and that is its role in ending the ill-fated presidential campaign of Gary Hart. But for the compromising photos of Gary Hart on Monkey Business, and the very public lies he told about such activities, Hart very well might have been the President of the United States. As it was, he was forced to drop out of the Democratic Party primaries as his support evaporated. This content is a perfect candidate for a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by Arxiloxos appear to push this - barely - past GNG; were this a person a BLP1E case could apply, but it isn't so it doesn't, and notability is not temporary. In 1987 the yacht became notable; therefore, per the notability guideline, it still is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I'm not at all convinced. In each instance of coverage linked above, it is brief and it is perfectly clear the only reason the subject boat was getting any attention was because of its prior involvement with the Gary Hart scandal. Even if the subject were marginally notable as you suggest, it is best covered in the context of the 1988 Gary Hart campaign. Remember: satisfying GNG is not a guarantee of a stand-alone article, and editors may decide that a particular subject is better covered as part of a larger article. Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? I still think a merge (with a redirect here) is still the best option here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Aside from the last part (and IS it still around?) yes, that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to be "the repository of the sum total of human knowledge", and while we do appeal to sanity by having the GNG, once something meets the GNG, then that needs to be the end of it. Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? It isn't significiantly - aside from the seizure, and there should be more story there (how did it wind up returned to its owner?), but while that would be relevant if this was an article about a living person, it isn't about a living person, and therefore it isn't relevant. What is relevant is that there is enough, for whatever reason, to establish it as notable, however barely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBR, Civil forfeiture in the United States is an involved subject that is hotly contested in the U.S. federal and state courts. The fact that Monkey Business was "seized" because of the presence of a few ounces of recreational marijuana is evidence of just how out of control the U.S. forfeiture laws had become by the late 1980s and 1990s. The drug asset forfeiture laws were written to permit the government to confiscate planes, boats, and other vehicles used in narcotics trafficking, as well as the cash proceeds therefrom; there is no presumption that the government may confiscate private property that is not being used for illegal purposes. The presence of a couple ounces of pot, although illegal, was not intended to allow the seizure of 6- and 7-figure pleasure craft that were not used for smuggling. It's no surprise that the government returned Monkey Business to its owners based on the facts mentioned in the article, and that does not make the boat notable, exceptional or even particularly noteworthy. If I may quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage in reliable sources creates the presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ." In this case, the best and most appropriate home for the Monkey Business content is the 1988 election section of the Gary Hart article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos, and Dirtlawyer1's description of what encyclopedic information that are presented in reliable sources that we'd want in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article could be expanded like Chappaquiddick incident to the Monkey Business incident or such - of such American history is made. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG with no objection to renaming. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge, as above). - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 18 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case

AfDs for this article:

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS. and fails WP:EVENT. 5 months after the last AfD I'm not seeing persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 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 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Also fails the various criteria WP:EVENT. If there is a conviction, then we would need to see if coverage shows "enduring notability". - Location (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see previous AfD - it has received international coverage for more than a year, and the trial to come. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * article has received international coverage indeed. still trial to come. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:19, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Masters

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The WikiProject Video Games reliable and situational custom Google searches (found at WP:VG/RS) returned zero results about this game, only about other games that happen to include a "guild master". The sources used in the article are unreliable (ZonaMMORPG) in addition to trivial (Akihabara Blues and Tecnologia y Ciencia). Diario de Sevilla appears to be an actual publication, but it's the kind of local promotional journalism that is virtually useless to us. Like the other sources, the author urges readers to support the Kickstarter campaign and says little about the game itself. That leaves Sevilla Directo, which is effectively a primary source. It's described as an "interview" but the developers aren't asked any questions: they highlight key points about their game and (again) promote their Kickstarter. Even if these sources were all significant and reliable and independent, we still wouldn't be able to write more than "there was a Kickstarter". I should note that the main contributor to this article, User:Almartor, has identified himself as the "main partner (CEO)" of the developer/publisher. Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only can add the following: -Sevilla Directo TV was an interview, but in the referenced video all questions were cropped to shorten it. Interviewed was not only talking about the game, they were replying to questions throwed by interviewer. - Diario de Sevilla is not only a "local newspaper" in Spain, it gathers several twin publications (same editor group) all Andalusia, the largest region in Spain with more than 8 millions of inhabitants, the same article was published in paper format in all Andalusia: Diario de Córdoba, Diario de Cádiz, Málaga Hoy, Granada Hoy, and some of them have also the digital version:

  - Granada Hoy: http://www.granadahoy.com/article/granada/1373877/prologo/una/aventura/alianzas.html
  - Málaga Hoy: http://www.malagahoy.es/article/malaga/1375617/prologo/una/aventura/alianzas.html

so it is not just "local". AS I stated before, the game was very notable on Spain for being the FIRST Spanish digital game funded on Kicksatarter when crowfunding was being fashioned in Spain. That is the reason of all those references for the kickstarter project. These articles were not propmotional, for that there are tons of press releases you can find on google. These coverage from this large editor group, both at paper and digital versions, and the local TV channel at Sevilla, IS reliable, and should be enough coverage for notability. You can delete for any other reason, but you should not delete it for lack of notability and Spanish coverage. --Almartor (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:GNG, the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia, do not include "was successfully crowdfunded", no matter how large the campaign was. In fact, we tend to ignore popularity, whether it's in the form of crowdfunding or People's Choice Awards. For a game, we're primarily looking for articles and reviews written by noted games journalists, covering things like development and history, gameplay, plot, and critical reception. The current sources virtually ignored those aspects and instead promoted–yes, promoted–your Kickstarter. We have separate notability requirements for events (see WP:EVENT) which require lasting effects, diverse and non-regional sources, and in-depth coverage of the event, none of which is the case here.

I should also mention that continuing to promote your game despite your clear conflict of interest is not a great idea. Editors with COI can find themselves topic-banned or even blocked from editing Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it the threat, I won't edit anymore in my articles, no need to ban anybody. Anyway you, intentionally or not, changed the sense of the notability reason. It is not just "being successfully crowdfunded" as ou remarked. IT is being the FIRST Spanish company successfully crowdfunded. Being the FIRST doing something in a country with more than 40 millions of inhabitants (specially doing something so fashionalbe nowadays as being funded on kickstarter), is something clearly notable, despite you minimize the achievement omitting the FIRST word. Furthermore, you are applying notablity criteria about launched games, but Guild Masrters is not properly launched (still just a beta pre-launch); its notability is not what you understand for a gme being notable, it is not just the game, but the achievemnet of being the first project in large country to doing something, what make it notable and deserved of being on wikipedia, as the South-Spanish newspapers did written about.

In short I won't edit anymore, and you can delete for any reason you think, but me or anybody can agree there is not notability and not trusted coverage about it. --37.11.162.127 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found no better coverage thus no signs of a better notable article. Notifying tagger Woodroar in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 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. Going, going, gone. Somebody with more time and patience than I have should probably nip over to the Commons and see what (if anything) needs to be done about the assortment of images associated with this. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mansion

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

I'm nominating this as part of the multiple Warren Chaney related episodes currently up for AfD.

A look at the sources for this article shows that it suffers from the same problems as the other AfDs. There's a large reliance on IMDb and other websites that cannot be used to show notability. Some of the reviews and other links go back to primary sources, which should not be considered reliable or a sign of notability given that so many Chaney related articles have claimed coverage through outlets that by all accounts do not seem to exist. There's also a review from Swapsale, which shouldn't be considered usable since they've sold some of Chaney's other work.

Now this source does mention the show, but I have to admit a certain amount of skepticism as a whole given the dearth of sources out there and the way that sources have been misrepresented in other articles.

Now assuming that this show did exist, I just can't see where it's particularly noteworthy and even if sources do exist out there to show that it could be notable, I'd actually argue for this to be WP:TNT'd and re-created to ensure that it's neutral and accurate.

I haven't made a rundown of the sources in this article item by item since the problems here are so similar to the others. However if there's enough demand for it I can do this, although I think that it's somewhat unnecessary.

I'm also nominating List of Magic Mansion episodes for deletion, given that it's related to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The other articles currently up for AfD are here (Space Patrol Chronicles) and here (America: Call to Greatness). More will be following. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with the WP:GNG going on with all of these the WP:SELFPROMOTION is staggering. If they had put in as much effort into actually creating these works as the have producing WikiP articles about them they might have accomplished something worth noting. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this whole Chaney thing is wild. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom due to lack of verifiability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the Kentucky New Era newspaper article and this listing in a book published by Wayne State University Press, I think it's safe to say that this is not a hoax and that it did air. However, I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I think it probably would be best if these Chaney articles were TNT-deleted and rewritten from scratch due to the promotion, poor sourcing, and verifiability issues. I'm willing to accept that this could be notable, but I'd want someone other than a promotional SPA to write it. There's too much history of misrepresentation and misuse of sources to trust what's been written in the article so far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all of the reasons already mentioned and also b/c upon further investigation, I think even the 2 sources NinjaRobotPirate mentioned are extremely dubious. For one thing, the article says that Magic Mansion was an original production of the Armed Forces Radio & Television Service (AFRTS). I’ve been looking into that angle and it seems extremely unlikely that in the 1960’s, AFRTS was creating original TV sitcoms that aired on an ongoing basis for 3 years and were written, acted, filmed and produced by servicemen in Okinawa. I’ll go into more detail about why at Talk:Magic Mansion. Also, Magic Mansion is only mentioned in one sentence in what’s a pretty long puff piece about Chaney’s life story, with an emphasis on his stint working for that same paper. I don’t think it’s too cynical to assume that the journalist A) might have known Chaney and B) probably didn’t fact check this one minor detail out of the whole article that wasn’t even about Magic Mansion anyway. The book cites imdb and tv.com as main sources, which we all know are problematic, and it's a perfect example of the same circular referencing I have found every single time I start looking into legitimate, but unreliable sources that mention one of Chaney's books, TV shows or movies. They're legitimate in the sense that it's unlikely there was a direct connection to Chaney, but unreliable b/c it was written by someone who didn't do their due diligence with research. I have not found a single reliable source in a reference list OR in my own research that supports any of the statements made in any article about Chaney. Permstrump (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I figured that would come up. I cringed when I saw the citations to the IMDb in that book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- After all we've seen, I agree about the likelihood of the New Era simply taking Cheney's word for it that the series existed. But I wonder how this could have gotten into the WSUP book. I wouldn't be surprised if they fell for a hoax - mistakes happen in serious published books. Sometimes editors are lazy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that the WSUP book came out in 2014. That makes it more probable they were suckered by this apparent web of deceit that began around 2011. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: This same local paper has reported numerous times that Chaney has a PhD in psychology and is a practicing psychologist, but his PhD dissertation from UNT is available online and it says his PhD was in management. Even if he did get some kind of combined degree in UNT's behavioral science program, which there's no documented indication of, it's a clear misrepresentation to call him a psychologist. Therefore, I definitely do not consider that local paper a reliable source, especially for the numerous articles that were clearly based off of an interview with Chaney, many of them written by the same journalist, Lowell Atchley. It's the paper for the small town he grew up in and mainly this one journalist kept writing articles on him for years and years after he moved away. My guess is that either Chaney would just call him up and ask him to do a story or the journalist believed all of it and thought he was a local kid who became a big celebrity. Permstrump (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone looked into the possibility that the various images for the program were photoshopped? The title card itself doesn't look like something that could have existed in the mid-1960s without a Photoshop-like program from the 1990s or later. Perhaps a time machine was involved? :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that SInclairindex mentions on the talk page that he/she has not seen video tapes, only kinescopes, yet, we have these lovely pictures from the 'show'...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevietheman: I did try to manually reverse google image search like 2 of them with no luck. Is there a bot that can do that for all of them in one shot? Permstrump (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I've never needed to do that before, and so I have never looked for such a bot. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop: I seriously suspect the images are faked. The metadata on some of them show they went through Photoshop (that could be innocent in itself). If you increase the color saturation on Magic_Mansion_(Induction_Episode).jpg it seems clear that the two people and dummy have been overlaid over a separate image, and if you zoom in on the woman's hair you can see a border where the original image was cut. If you look at the shadows in Magic_Mansion_Episode-Basket_of_Deception.jpg you can see that the lighting is from top-to-bottom, except Chaney is lit from bottom to top. In MagicMansion_Episode-Rathmore's_Magic_Trunk.jpg the shadows show lighting from right to left, except the left figure is lit from left to right. If you zoom in at the bottom of the figure on the left, and Chaney's feet, you can see anomalous blurring. Chaney's feet also do not appear to align with the floor. It would be impressive and insane if the entire Magic Mansion were utterly fictional. Magic Mansion now appears on an insane number of user-generated websites, apparently copied from Wikipedia and/or IMDB. Alsee (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything adds up to a hoax for me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've emailed AFRTS about this to ask if this show existed. I figure that if it does, then that's something less to worry about but if it doesn't then they would certainly need to know for obvious reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot Tokyogirl79, I should have mentioned that on Thursday I emailed AFN (formerly AFRTS for those who haven't looked into that angle). I was waiting to see what they had to say and it was anticlimactic, so I forgot. They wrote back Friday and just said they only have records going back a few years and to try contacting the National Archives. I haven't tried that yet. I was going to copy the same message to a few different places. I'll write more about it on Rhododendrites/Chaney. Permstrump (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! That's something to check into! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to go ahead and WP:SNOW this one like the others, but decided for the moment to leave it open on account of 1. @Tokyogirl79:'s query mentioned above, and 2. the fact that somebody should probably go through and tag all the images used here for nuclear demolition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've spent quite a while investigating as well and I endorse everything above. Magic Mansion might(?) be real, but the lack of documentable Notability, the wild promotionalism, the utterly unreliable sourcing, and the socking and actively-deceptive edits by the article creator make this a clear TNT. Alsee (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update on contacting AFRTS: Sort of a non-update, but I heard back on facebook from AFN-Pacific, formerly AFRTS's Far East Network (FEN). That guy also thought the national archives might be the best bet, but he sounded intrigued and said he'd look into it and get back to me with more information if he can. Tokyogirl79 already contacted the national archives. I imagine they only answer messages during normal business hours, so I assume we won't hear back until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest. I think it's good that we left the Magic Mansion page up in the meantime, because it will help them understand what we're talking about so they can adequately research it. Permstrump (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as interesting an academic exercise as this is, the thing has no coverage anywhere outside the Chaneyverse, just saying.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fascinating. I'm here because this topic was categorised as "Japan-related", which it isn't really. I found myself chasing a claim that Chaney had "discovered" the actress Tia Carrere, a claim which dissipates after about two links to the film Aloha Summer. Something which really bugs me, though, is that after the work of removing all trace of the "Chaneyverse", WP will no longer be of immediate help to anyone trying to find out about any of these fictions. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:44, 17 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. Speedy close Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling - Student Public Service Announcement Campaign

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

Wikipedia is not a place for school projects. Proposed deletion was rejected. jBot-42 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - lacks notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly, per WP:NOTESSAY. sst✈^(discuss) 04:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not an encyclopaedia article, or even an attempt at writing one. We need a speedy deletion category for stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. Agree with Nick-D, there should be a Speedy for this sort of non-article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:29, 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.

[1] Troy Lee Designs. Troy Lee Designs http://www.troyleedesigns.com/company. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] . LA Times http://www.latimes.com/tn-cpt-et-0710-troy-lee-designs-20150710-story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]