Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 November	21 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Mackey

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

Not notable; no independent citations to confirm anything noteworthy. Someone with her own YouTube channel is not a notable personality. Mdude04 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) In a video game reliable sources custom Google search, most coverage came from Engadget and thus would not be independent (since she was affiliated with WoW Insider, a sister site). All other coverage is incidental to her biography and not in-depth. I don't think the individual reality shows make worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --Eden's Apple (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real sources saying she did anything of note. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (NAC) There is consensus here that a stand-alone article is not necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Verona Johnston

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries and a trivial mention from Drake University, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect and Marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. oppose to delete because this article is not without source and it has the same title that "the oldest living American" with her, such as Mary Christian and Elena Slough's biography has been included in List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. Therefore, rather than delete, it is better to her information move there. In addition, Emma Verona Johnston (August 1890 – December 2004, 114 years and 117 days old) is older than Mary Christian (June 1889 – April 2003, 113 years and 312 days old) and Elena Slough (July 1889 – October 2003, 114 years and 93 days old), therefore more notable.--Inception2010 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Inception, notability for Wikipedia purposes has nothing to do with age under the general notability guidelines, and everything to do with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. In the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, Methuselah would not be notable. Claims of oldest person in England, Canada, California, Japan, etc., are meaningless for notability purposes in the absence of significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per NOPAGE. Nothing worth reporting in a standalone article. EEng (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Record holders of oldest living American usually have an article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Was featured more times in the media than the nominator could find:

Another Ohioan noted for longevity (Lima News, 20 May 2004)

Oldest American still calls Iowa her home (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 11 July 2004)

Furthermore, she was the oldest living American and one of the oldest people in the world at the time of her death. Notable enough for her own article on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been sufficient media coverage on the oldest living American at her time. Moreover, the authenticity of her remarkable age has been scientifically confirmed: GRG table A - Verified Supercentenarians (Listed Chronologically By Birth Date)White Eaglet (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

There's nothing in the WP:GNG that says "having your age verified by the GRG makes you notable". A GRG table does nothing to establish notability because they are simply names in a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring it; I'm saying that this article provides the significant coverage that exceeds that standard. Notice that the overwhelming consensus here is for retention of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus among SPAs, you mean (plus you, of course). "Coverage" alone doesn't answer NOPAGE, because the NOPAGE question is what's worth actually saying about the subject, regardless of how much information is in the coverage. (Much of this longevity coverage is fluff such as "She liked to have lunch with visitors.") So yes, you're indeed ignoring the NOPAGE argument. This has been explained to you a couple of times, and not just by me. [1]. EEng (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, it's been explained to you multiple times that the article here provides appropriate significant coverage, the ultimate answer to NOPAGE. The problem here and elsewhere is that you don't make a case, you just repeat the same rejected nonsense all over again that has already been considered and rejected by consensus here. (Cue for EEng to repeat the same BS arguments all over again, using lots of abbreviations and other demands). Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address the article, not the editor, nor on what we imagine they may or may not choose to do in the future. Jacona (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JaconaFrere. Alansohn, the question NOPAGE asks is whether the subject is best presented in a standalone article versus along with other subjects in a list or similar article. The sheer quantity of information in the article has little to do with that, because most of it is fluff that shouldn't be there anyway. EEng (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to our article on Superceturians There are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians[3] in the world, though only 51 verified cases are known." Therefore any claim to be the oldest anywhere is doubious at best as there is likely to be about 400 other potential recordholders. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, GRG "pending" cases have been deleted off Wikipedia, so in reality, more than 51 are known. Secondly, most of the 51 people are actually aged 112+... so the proportion of people 112+ is greater than 10%. Thirdly, even if there's some doubt as to whether someone is truly the "oldest person from place X", what can be known is the oldest DOCUMENTED person from place X. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about who's the oldest documented person. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States#People, per WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLP1E.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have an articles that deals with all these. Extremely trivial. Just because sources prove someone existed doesn't mean they deserve their own article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neither of the editors who asserted this is notable provided any cogent arguments to back that up. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravedactyl: Project Evolution

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Award is not major, one of a plethora given out at a small festival. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just as was decided at the last AFD... while its notability is not extreme, it is just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that claim to notability, to quote another "winner" of an award from that disreputable festival "it's only the ignorant who would be impressed by that." [2]. New York International Independent Film and Video Festival awards are not "a major award" WP:NFILM. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing filmmaker Bill Johns' disgruntled non-RS personal opinion. The point of award recognition for Wikipedia is less about the award itself and more that receiving an award offers an inference that the receiving of one may be accompanied by media coverage, and that the receiving a (non-defined) major is simply more likely to be accompanied by press coverage, and the receiving of a (non-defined) minor is somewhat less likely. Pretty much, WP:NF is generally determined by coverage or a reasonable expectation that in 2003 it existed. Kind of simply, really. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgruntled or honest? "receiving an award offers an inference that the receiving of one may be accompanied by media coverage". Receiving a major award is more than likely going to receive coverage. That's why NFILMS has major awards in there. The same is not true for many awards. Hyper local festivals, award farms, pay for play awards often get ignored by the media for good reason. Their is no presumption of coverage for so many of the plethora of awards out there. Kind of simple, really. As for your choice to red link Mr. Johns to show he is not notable to lessen his opinion. It counters your argument instead of backing it. You're appear right in his appearance of non notability. He has only won the same minor award as this film did. You're saying he is not notable says the film is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-)Notability is not inherited. Because a filmmaker isn't notable doesn't automatically mean their film isn't, or vice versa - nevermind a different, unrelated film. LjL (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Nightscream (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs expanding not deleting46.208.73.116 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - the award from a minor, somewhat contentious defunct festival, where the entries are not nominated, but paid for, doesn't appear to pass WP:NFILM. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG either, as News and Books turned up only a hit to the imdb page, Newspapers, Highbeam and Scholar turned up 0. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Merge to Graig Weich; note that the writers of that article did not see fit to mention this film in the prose section of the article, although they did list the award. The award was not "major" as required by WP:NFILM; it was from the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, a short-lived, not particularly respected festival, which reportedly accepted almost every film that paid the entry fee. More hype: the article misleadingly states that the film "won the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival"; it actually won the award for Best Short Film. The lack of media coverage for this film only emphasizes the minor nature of the award - and the non-notability of this film. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2-A1MP

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

The contents of this article cannot be verified. There's no CAS number for it, nor any mention of it in the normal scientific literature. Most of the information on its effects appear to have been scrapped from internet message boards, this in no way meets MEDRS. Project Osprey (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) If you have a look at the "talk" page for the article these issues were already discussed. Also have you looked at many of the other currently existing emerging drug articles? Many have far less reference backing their content but still remain.[reply]

Regarding CAS#, this compound appears to be too new to have been given a number, at least according to CAS website, but I do get this number when I search the web: 831232-01-2. This is new info to me also, there was no number anywhere I searched, even as recently as last week. I have not been able to confirm this as being correct info for the record, so I don't think this number should be included as CAS for this specific substance until verified.

I am open to changing the name, the current main article name is 2-a1mp (there is some confusion about the I or 1 thing worldwide it seems) and via the suppliers' listed IUPAC name and molecular models I have been able to link the substance structure with 5-methoxy-methylone which I would consider acceptable as an article name as long as the 2-a1mp reference is there near the top due to it's popularity. The MDMA article isn't called "Molly" etc, but this case is different in that it is being sold by overseas chemical suppliers using 2-a1mp/aimp as the official name.

At what point does information on potential public safety threats become "notable" or up to Wikipedia's "standards"? Surely it can't be that news reports of injury or death from chemical threats are what would make this "notable".. To me any substance that is being consumed by human beings as food/supplements should be deemed "notable" just by that fact alone.. I'm not sure about how exactly to bring something so new up to wiki standards since there really isn't a lot of available information, but I am sure that first-aid response and safety via general education and awareness were the primary motivators for my original submission and will be for any future contributions of mine on the topic of emerging substances of potential abuse, regardless of how Wikipedia policy is interpreted by any given user/admin.

Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Articles on chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This chemical compound clearly does not meet the criteria. It may do so in the future, but it does not now. Currently, there is no mention of this chemical compound anywhere in the scientific literature - nothing in Chemical Abstracts or Reaxys. Due to the rapid cat-and-mouse games between individuals that produce novel recreational drugs and the toxicologists/drug-control agencies that track them, emerging drugs of abuse quickly make it into the scientific literature these days. The fact that this one has not suggests that it is not yet notable. The complete absence of reliable sources in the article (all the current sources refer only to different, related chemical compounds) means there is no verifiable content. Even the CAS#831232-01-2, as noted above, is incorrect; it is not even a valid format. This is indicative of the reliability problems associated with trying to create an article about something for which there are no reliable sources to base content on. Per WP:N and WP:V, this article should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ed. shoy (reactions) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling the supposed IUPAC name (no listing of it in official sources) does show some sites selling claiming a CAS number of 831232-01-2. I have not been able to verify this in any reliable source. Best to delete for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Chemical Company provides forensic standards of the molecule referred to here as 2-aimp, however they call it (much more sensibly) 5-methoxy-methylone. A included links to their data on the substance. They're pretty established and respected, meaning the substance and the IUPAC do indeed exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ First off hello all! This has been open for discussion for a week and now all the naysayers appear? What is this, ebay lol? Seriously though, how does one define "quickly"? as in these chemicals find their way "quickly" into medical papers etc. What is the typical trigger which brings these items into view of the scientific community? As I've said I don't know how to bring said substance up to wikipedia standards, I don't have a lab and even if I did I believe someone else would have to create a paper on their findings or create the article here it can't be the same person. I just feel that anything people will ingest is deserving of being called notable. Nerdking2015 (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per person please. shoy (reactions) 13:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I don't know how to bring said substance up to wikipedia standards". As an experienced editor here, I don't know how to either. There simply isn't any available information from reliable sources upon which to write an encyclopedia article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the substance exists and is being consumed presently.. this may be a better topic for some other type publication, what brought me here is the fact that Wikipedia is a first-line resource for lots of people worldwide. I feel that the fact that these chemicals are being ingested makes them of particular notability, and the pace of the chemistry game is much too fast for emerging molecules to meet the notability standards, during the time it takes for research etc to be done, there will almost inevitably be some injury or worse to some percentage of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdking2015 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your aim, I think you'd be better off at Erowid. shoy (reactions) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps.. but can anyone explain what features this article has (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%27-Fluoro-%CE%B1-Pyrrolidinooctanophenone) that the 2-a1mp article discussed here lacks? Just curious. Thanks in advance! :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Ethylmethcathinone. One reference? It does have a CAS number I guess that's all that's needed? I'm failing to see consistency here. Nerdking2015 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. If you feel that they don't meet notability standards, feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy (reactions) 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that had to be done by an admin. At any rate I just wanted to make sure that some thing that I saw with increasing frequency was mentioned here since prior to that it wasn't. I contribute when I can, but life won't allow me the luxury of singling out articles for deletion. My lack of knowledge of the gazillion or so "WP:[stuff]" arguments would make building a case for each difficult. Plus, and I don't know if I mentioned this already or not, but people ingest the stuff. Into their bodies. The very people that are the reason wikipedia exists. That's all. Whatever happens happens :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The compound referred to as "2-A1MP" is specifically listed as an illegal drug in at least one judisdiction, Hungary. See A Magyarországon megjelent, a Kábítószer és Kábítószer-függőség Európai Megfigyelő Központjának Korai Jelzőrendszerébe (EMCDDA EWS) 2005 óta bejelentett ellenőrzött anyagok büntetőjogi vonatkozású besorolása, on page 9 of the pdf. I know there are hundreds of designer drugs known by now, but nevertheless from a legal perspective it is still a big deal when any compound is specifically banned. Especially in this case, as since Hungary is an EU member it is almost certain that other member states will also ban this compound before long, as they try to keep their legislation harmonised. It is hard to argue that a compound which people can go to prison for, could possibly fail to meet WP:N. This does pose a problem however from a Wikipedia policy perspective, as while the Hungarian ban notice is certainly a WP:RS, it is essentially the only accepted source that this compound exists. Sadly, this situation is not uncommon these days, but I don't think that deleting pages for compounds that are indisputably notable, just because of a lack of sources, is the right approach. Meodipt (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, I'm not sure that it being banned in Hungary is a big deal. Due to the speed with which new compounds are being created governments are now just banning whole lists of chemicals based on their structure, rather than any proven evidence of harm, or even proof that they exist. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to find any actively for sale that do not exist. Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Project Osprey, no, you are wrong about this. Certain jurisdictions such as Hungary and Sweden have very efficient processes for adding new psychoactive substances to banned lists as soon as they are identified by government forensic laboratories, but one thing they do not do is ban "prophetic" compounds that have not been encountered yet. Such compounds do indeed get banned sometimes but only under analogue provisions, and you do sometimes see prophetic compounds mentioned in discussion documents about upcoming analogue bans (such as this one from the UK, and this one from Germany), but prophetic compounds rarely if ever get specifically added to banned lists by name. This only happens when compounds have been identified (usually from Police or Customs seizures) and their chemical structure has been definitively established by analytical laboratories, as has happened here. Meodipt (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, this doesn't mean drugs always get banned for good reasons, and there are quite a few compounds banned in some jurisdictions on the basis of their pharmacological properties rather than because they have actually been sold as designer drugs. But these are always known compounds, if 2-A1MP has been listed by name there is no doubt it exists. Meodipt (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although a rename to 5-Methoxymethylone wouldn't hurt. Aethyta (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits look great imo! Definite improvement. :-) Nerdking2015 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep compounds do not have to have a CAS number. At least the content is sourced and it looks like WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drug which multiple people have used, explicitly scheduled in Hungary. Obviously not as important as MDMA or LSD, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Thereppy (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Zadok

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

Seemingly clear non-notable biography as my searches simply found nothing better than some links here. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. News turned up some trivial mentions, which shows that this person exists, but zip on the other search engines. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No. Just no. Not what Wikipedia is for. We may as well give everyone on the planet their own article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Boros

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should not be deleted. It contains many references to his international publications, his media appearances in BBC, Financial Times etc. He is the board member of some well-known institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.201.204 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found a few links through News and two web searches, nothing better. BTW Wikicology There's no place as Hungaria and the deletion sort is actually Hungary (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary). SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you google search him, you'll get more than 25,000 hits. Most of the hits are interviews, publications, lectures in conferences. References/media appearances can be found in 10-15 different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:1080:C880:458C:A005:4527:3477 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering this is getting to a third relist and I'm not sure if anyone else is going to comment soon, I'll notify DGG who I know lists to be notified of these subject AfDs anyway. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic attempt to inflate the importance of a minor figure. Not an academic -- no academic position. Only 2 publications in Worldcat, neither with more than 1 holding . The ones mentioned here are apparently articles, not books, so he does not meet WP:AUTHOR. You will indeed find links to his columns and his articles and to places like the references in this article where is is one of a number of people mentioned .Not a single third party references seems to say anything significant about him or his ideas. So he does not even meet the GNG. Based on the Google translation, the Hungarian article adds nothing further. Young European of the Year is a junior award, and none of the other people listed have articles in the enWP--or in their home encycopedia. He may become notable some day and then there can be an article. I note the two ip eds have made no other contribution to WP than in this discussionand their comments should therefore be disregarded. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear vanity page. Only people interested in creating the article and supporting its existence are unregistered and/or SPA editors. Not notable. No reason to keep. Rayman60 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and per DGG's excellent analysis, clearly doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. I'm giving less weight to the three "keep" opinions because they are new accounts with few contributions which are mostly dedicated to working on this topic; their views are furthermore not based on the applicable policies and guidelines. The content can be userfied if anybody wants to try and improve it as advised in the nom ination. Sandstein 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Asians of Toronto

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

Article which is ostensibly about an organization, but which in reality is serving primarily as a WP:COATRACK — overall, the content and nearly all of the sourcing are primarily about the entire history of LGBT Asian people in North America in general, and/or biographical sketches of some individual members. And meanwhile, the content that is actually about the organization itself is far too dependent on primary sources, like the organization's own membership brochure and its own self-published history documents, rather than reliable source coverage which is actually about the organization. It's certainly possible that the organization would qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article in which the organization was actually the subject, but coatracking an extended history of gay Asian people worldwide isn't the way to get there. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a better version that keeps its eye on the ball instead of trying to cover the entire football field and the bleachers and the parking lot. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat The page has been edited since your proposal for deletion. If your opinion still has not change, then let us know. Thank you.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found no better improvement unless others have any avail. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister We did some major edits on the article, if you still think the same. Please let us know.

Keep I am very willing to reconstruct the whole article based on your previous comments. Please provide more constructive criticism on the article. Currently, I am trying to edit the article as a response to your comments. For example, I reduced the information on the "background" which seems as coattrackers. Whilst, added more reference entries that discussed Gay Asians of Toronto, such as published encyclopedia and books. Have a great day everyone!Jana.borras (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To add to Jana's point, we have done extensive research on Gay Asians of Toronto, and as she has pointed out, the formation of this group has made a large impact to not only gay Asians in the Toronto community, but as well as all over the world. I have added a point about this into the article, hoping to make the background of Gay Asians in North America more acceptable for this article. The reason this group had formed was because of advocacy in North America, and the sense of belonging in other parts of the world that were beginning to take shape because of groups such as GAT. GAT also was a large step for other gay asians communities forming in North America. Finally, one of GAT's goals was to create a sense of community globally. Maybe if we made that more clear it would help in keeping this article up. As well, we have also been working to add more secondary sources. SamMaalouf (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMaalouf (talk • contribs)

Delete no evidence of notability and no reliable sources. I agree this is a WP:COATRACK Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinsfan1988 I hope you expanded on your comment, I believe most of the references on this article were secondary, reliable sources in the form of books and encyclopedia published by other institutions and not by the organization itself.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been thoroughly revised and edited based on the recommendations of these individuals who offered their criticisms. Therefore, we should Keep the article.

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Being revised and edited is completely beside the point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VMS Mosaic As revisions and edits took place, additional notable sources have been added, as well as removing some information that includes unknown and primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMaalouf (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I really hope that this article can be retained, and not deleted. It is providing essential information about a very important organization in Canada. Brownels (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)brownels[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vu Digital

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

Non notable and promotional / The refs are PR. Even if it is borderline notable, the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing better at this time. Notifying past AfD commenters Joseph2302, WikiDan61, Natg 19, ThaddeusB and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As before. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple independent regional and national sources. Certainly the PR links could be deleted as sources, but TechCrunch, Jackson Clarion Ledger and Mississippi Business Journal remain as valid sources. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MBJ article is an interview with a founder, and as such seen as problematic in light of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Mississippi Business Journal is also a pretty regional source (circulation 5,000), so borderline for the audience requirement. Jackson Clarion Ledger is fine, but mentions the company only in passing. TechCrunch's article is not about the company but about one of its products, and so fails per WP:INHERIT (a company is not notable because its products received coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The notability of an interview is not a generally agreed upon standard. The fact that an interview is made and space devoted to it indicates notability.

(b) The Clarion Ledger is entirely about Vu Digital and the need for their product. The second half of the article is with an independent analyst who describes situations where their technology is needed.

(c) The TechCrunch article is about the company, because it is a single product company. Most startup technology companies are single product for their first 3-5 years. As such, the product and the company can not be separated. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Winslow, George (2015-05-05). "Vu Digital Launches V2D". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
2. Ha, Anthony (2015-05-04). "Vu Digital Translates Videos Into Structured Data". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
3. McDill, Stephen (2013-08-02). "Ridgeland-based Vu Digital gives media content, websites a personal touch". Mississippi Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vu Digital to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk)

I agree with Sbwoodside (talk · contribs) that discussion of the company's product is discussion of the company so helps establish notability. Discussion of a company's history establishes notability. Why not discussion of what the company produces (its products)?
The company has received nonlocal coverage from Broadcasting & Cable and TechCrunch.
My second choice is to merge/redirect to C Spire Wireless, the parent company. Deletion is a poor choice per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Redirect Merge and redirect to parent company C Spire Wireless. Same content can be added at the main article. Mirror360 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:Cunard. The article is compact and concise and passes GNG. I also note that the article went through AfC and also survived a prior AfD.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of high quality references, not convinced of notability. The references are to sources like PRNewswire and local Mississippi media. For a technology product/business, there is a lack of references to any more respected technology sources (e.g. journals, the specialist IT press, reports of industry analyst firms like Gartner or Forrester). SJK (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A national company should have national sources separate from the press releases. This lacks any real sources. Perhaps a local wiki can cover it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect to the parent company, C Spire Wireless? Cunard (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info. DreamGuy (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still support a separate article, I'd prefer a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) over deletion so that any useful information can be merged from Vu Digital to its parent company's article, C Spire Wireless, and the redirect can be easily undone if/when Vu Digital has received more coverage about it.
Cunard (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amor Torres

AfDs for this article:

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

"Princess" Maria Amor Torres lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. ~~Her "charity" is a scam where suckers buy "awards" with donations and favours.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck section that's not really pertinent. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are number of US Congresswomen and heads of other countries are getting involved with her, if she is a fraud, definitely they will not. They know whether her CHARITY is a Scam or not better than others. If the honorees are going to fund for various of her projects, let her be creative to bridge the gap between the poor and the affluent. Why there is hunger in third world countries, it is because more than the lack of distribution channels, there are people to criticize the initiators.Kailasher (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to improve slightly with another reference.[3] I think article should be expanded. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her planned documentary television series, The Travelling Princess, documents her charity funded travels and meeting wannabe humanitarians around the world. That article is more PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Star is a perfectly reputable newspaper and as such is a reliable source. You're entitled to think whatever you like of her but, alas, you are not considered a reliable source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so the Star make One decent ref, that's not multiple. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsfirst [4] and Nation reports[5] are also sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"News"first is her talking about herself. The Nation press release says sod all about her. Still a lack of any INDEPENDENT depth of coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its improved since nomination for deletion with more than one reliable sources Kanatonian (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Since nomination One source has been added, not multiple. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kanatonian. Deletion does not serve the project". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kanatonian it has improved after nomination after some good work by Wikimandia.But the article needs further work but would prefer to keep at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For all those rabbiting "per", which sources are reliable and sufficient coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikimandia noted you are not a reliable source for your finding, "rabbiting" and other; your only intention is to remove the article on Wikipedia since you haven't notified me of the CSD (just before this AfD) as requested in the template.Kailasher (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you say here is relevant to this discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is not relevant, please explain why you haven't inform me of the CSD?Kailasher (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not a reliable source. I have explained enough on the top. If you are firm on your stance you should not have back tracked.Kailasher (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What??? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted your statement after my explanation.Kailasher (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable enough, only we need expansion of the article. A few possible anti-Filipino people can't determine whether she is notable or not.Kailasher (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss sources please not character assess your oponants. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub. As such it is perfectly acceptable and it also does appear notable enough. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 01:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectView

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

Non-notable commercial software product. Might've been popular two decades ago, but I'm not finding any references that demonstrate notability now. Mikeblas (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It was marginally notable in the late '90s, but we have nothing here worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: On the other hand it was one of the first commercial software suites specifically designed for creating and deploying web applications. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not web applications (broadly), as it was late to that game. If it had any significance, it was as a way to build clients for web services. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there references to that effect? If not, there's still no demonstration of notability, and the article must go. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place to look would be old copies of Infoworld and Dr Dobbs. Early-mid '90s, this was yet another RAD / 4GL thing to let non-coder suits build Windows desktop apps, up against PowerBuilder and instead of Visual Basic. When the web happened, these things started to panic and looked for other niches to occupy. For ObjectView, this was adopting DCOM, XML-RPC and then SOAP to make use of web services, still largely targeted at building desktop apps rather than web back ends. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't supposed to "go" based on their current state, but about what they could become when in a decent shape, with relevant references present. LjL (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it. But I won't be, and I can't be arsed to do so as I don't think it's of enough significance to make it worth my own time. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I can/will "fix it" has no relevance on whether the topic is appropriate to keep an article - which is my vote, by the way. It's a shame that so many people seem to think articles can be deleted based on their content, instead of their topic, which is not what policy says. LjL (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the article's current state. I'm talking about the availability of references. If references aren't available, the subject isn't notable and the article gets deleted. That's a pretty fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, please remember that you're not voting here. -- 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My !vote, fine - way to nitpick. While we're randomly nitpicking, please remember you are supposed to sign properly! LjL (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not fade with time. How well known the current version of the software is doesn't matter. ObjectView was one of the first Windows client/server tools for database access. I've added some history and references. 1990's issues of Computerworld, InfoWorld, PC Magazine, etc. have happily been digitized and are online in full view at Google Books for the history of this era of computing. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if it was notable two decades ago, it's automatically notable now, per WP:NTEMP. LjL (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). There is clear consensus here to keep this article. The editors arguing for deletion have stated that the accuracy of the information is in dispute; however, this is an argument to include the debate in the article, and does not negate notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

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

Questioned as a hoax, and deleted on two other Wikipedia sites for that reason due to contradicting sources. Let's get the ball rolling on whether the same should happen here. Mdann52 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article itself should not have had the hoax template - there are plenty of sources going back years on this guy. There's even a museum dedicated to him in Azerbaijan. The reason for the hoax tag is because some (mainly from a certain neighboring country that hates AZE) insist the story about his heroics is all lies and Soviet and Azeri propaganda. That's not the same as WP:HOAX. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the sources are made up in the sense that they contain false information. Please note that for whatever reason this subject became one more example of animosity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and we should expect here a lot of Armenian users voting delete and a lot of Azeri users voting delete (I am neither, and I ab absolutely neutral in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works - it has not been proven they contain false information, and even so it is not our job to investigate facts. If reliable sources have reported his life questionable or likely propaganda, then put in the article! A subject is notable if it has been the subject of persistent coverage in reliable sources, NOT "but only if it's been proven the information reported is true." There are plenty of articles about hoaxes and subjects of propaganda - his life possibly being faked may in fact make him more notable, especially because of the additional recent coverage about the deleted WP article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not sure whether you got it - currently most of the information in the article is false. As a reputable website, we can not afford having false information. And since, exactly, we can not investigate the case ourselves, it is very difficult to separate a small number of correct facts from a large number of things which were made up at various periods of time. To put it differently, almost none of the sources in the article are reliable, and some contradict to the others. This is why I voted delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And when has it been reported in reliable sources most of the info is false? We report what the reliable sources say. If something is suspect, this is why we have tags such as "dubious," "better source needed" etc. This is not a BLP - we do not delete the article out of fear of damaging Wikipedia's credibility. The Wiki campaigners who are trying to prove his story is a hoax (along with those trying to prove it's all true) are NOT reliable sources. We are here to determine notability, which the subject easily meets. In a magazine issued just this month, his museum is referred to as "one of the great places of Sheki." - page 80-81) —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not reliable. They have never been reliable. RT (TV network) is way more reliable in its coverage of Russian-Ukrainian conflict that these sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly are they not reliable? The article has been slashed to a stub but there are an extraordinary amount of sources talking about him. Here's yet another article from 2012 and one from 2014 from lent.az and vesti.az, which is owned by APA Holding. Unlike RT, it is not a state-funded company. Is it your position that everything the Azerbaijani media says is lies? He is mentioned in books and magazines going back to the 1960s, and Soviet books and newspapers have never, to the best of my knowledge, been blacklisted as not RS. They are frequently cited even by historians today. Here is Jabrayilov in a book from the 1970s by Garash Matadov - who as I said, is cited by historians today. Should I contact Dr. Alstadt and break the news that Matadov, who she cited at least a dozen times, is not a reliable source on Azerbaijani history? Is it possible Jabrayilov's story has been greatly exaggerated or fabricated into a national myth (ie Vasily Zaytsev and his supposed rival, Erwin König)? Absolutely. Do we have sources saying such? No. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here, many users argue that RT is a reliable source because it is a reputable TV channel. Similarly, Azerbaijan is a totalitarian state. Whatever the government says (and earlier it was the communist party) gets published. Therefore whateer these sources say about Azerbaijan (and Armenia) is a RS on opinions of Azerbaijani government, but must be double-checked about anything else. We have seen that it badly failed the check.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Russian and French Wikipedias removed Jabrayilov's articles as a fake hero: Russian the accumulated amount of contradicting information exceeded the limit allowing the contributors to write an encyclopedic article in accord with Wikipedia rules to reference respected sources not contradicting to each other, French Le manque de sources et des incohérences sont mises en évidence. Divot (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Russian/French Wikipedia's standard of notability and deletion arguments are not the same as English Wikipedia. That there were articles about the deletion of his articles even attests to his notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable person as a participant of Resistance. There is a lot of published reliable sources claiming that. There is several paragraphs about him in the book about participation of Azerbaijan in World War II of Garash Madatov, there is an article about Jabrayilov in Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia. And nothing which can proof that he is hoax. Only original research of some Wikipedia users. I visited house-museum of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in Shaki, had a discussion with the director of the museum, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the son of Ahmadiyya, made photos of awards, documents, original photos from France and letters to him. Also Javanshir Jabrayilov gave me all scans of the documents and photographs of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. Yes, there are some unclear moments in the biography of Jabrayilov. But it doesn't mean that all biography of Jabrayilov is "Soviet-era hoax". It is normal that there are many unclear moments in the events of World War II. But during the discussion on Russian Wikipedia everybody confirmed that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov really took part in Resistance. In 1970s he visited France, we can see how really participants of Resistance (Rene Chambar, Louis Lasbareilles etc.) greet him. We can see how they visited memorial for Soviet victims. This visit was also documented in French "Sud Ouest" newspaper, where we can also see a photo of Jabrayilov. We cannot ignore these facts. We also cannot ignore the fact of the presence of French awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum (Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix du combattant etc.). Médaille militaire we can see only in the historical photos, which Jabrayilov brought from France[6][7] (as his son said to me this medal was taken from him in Moscow in 1966, when Jabrayilov was invited to greet Charles de Gaulle). So, according to the rules of Wikipedia Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable as a participant of Resistance to have an article about him in Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, a new biographical book about him is due to be published. Many claims to the contrary are based on unpublished material or contain original research, particularly since there are different French spellings of his name. Brandmeister^talk 21:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's notability is clear per EN WP's guidelines. He passes WP:GNG no doubt.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, thoroughly cleanup. Since the shit hit the fan, just wait and see what mainstream write. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If some consider this story to be a hoax, presumably there would be sources to back that up. Some relevant sources are listed, but under a section about the removal of the article from the French and Russian WPs. That should really be a section about alternate theories, doubts, etc. LaMona (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not actually a hoax, as he did exist which is confirmed by multiple sources. It's just some unclear moments and inconsistencies in his biography that could be described, the deletion is not the solution. The deletion in Russian WP occurred despite consensus to keep the article with possible rewriting. Brandmeister^talk 18:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was the fact that some people consider it a hoax can be added to the article, not that his story is a hoax. Any controversy of this kind belongs in the article if it has been covered in reliable sources, as is an account of the inconsistencies in the story. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having participated in the Russian WP discussion, I can say that all allegations there are in fact based on original research and synthesis, with no RS to back them up. Brandmeister^talk 10:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much appears to have been written about it. Even if it is considered a "story", it definitely is a notable one, so it should be attributed as such by reliable sources saying that. Mar4d (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs a rewrite, however, that doesn't make it a hoax. And saying that the Russian WP deleted it for that reason is misleading here. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it misleading to say it was deleted in Russian and French Wikipedias as a hoax?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources prove he is real person and really fought with French ressistance. Cathry (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existense of article based on such deceitful sources in the English Wikipedia is its shame. Кадош (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is too much debate on the accuracy of the sources for the article to stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss sources in detail including why they are or are not hoaxes Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a section such as "Deletion from Russian and French Wikipedias" included, can be kept. --ssr (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person was real, and the sources provided during the discussion at the Russian wiki prove that he fought in the French Resistance. If his actual deeds were exaggerated by the Soviet propaganda, it does not make the person unnotable. But we need reliable sources on the alleged exaggeration by the Soviet propaganda. Grandmaster 18:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia investigation has generated a number of mass media sources in Russian. --ssr (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Internet phenomena. Uggg nasty.... But i have to go by the consensus of the discussion which is that we dont have this page rather than personal preference. Im not quite seeing a delete outcome so redirect it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck her right in the pussy

AfDs for this article:

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

This was brought to AfD before with a decision to delete. Apparently, the article has been recreated and I want to see if the sentiment is the same as it was a year ago on this article about "internet bloopers" and its appropriateness as an article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per condition #3: The deletion request appears to be erronous, as it provides no rationale for deletion besides the fact that it had been deleted before in a different form. The nominator does not appear to have actually judged the article in its current form. It is clearly a notable subject, with heavy coverage in reliable sources in response to the Toronto FC/CityNews and Calgary/CBC incidents, which sparked media attention and was a conduit for this article's re-creation and rewrite, which I presume made the article completely different in comparison to the deleted version. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet phenomena and protect (although I consider deleting a viable option as well) perhaps as my searches found some links but nothing better than the usually expected coverage for these controversies. Notifying past AfD commenters for better comments, Cirt, Tryptofish, Milowent, Edison, Arxiloxos, MrX, Dirtlawyer1, DGG, Alexsautographs, Wikidemon, Supernerd11 and Bogger. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable and WP:NOT#CENSORED. Last time around my !vote was just that whatever you do with it, don't dump the content on List of Internet Phenomena as it is not a universal dumping ground for weak or offensive content, or for all Internet memes anyway, there are thousands of notable ones and that would be an unbounded list. This time, perhaps it has demonstrated some more notability through continued coverage, which is why a comparison would be useful. Nevertheless, the subject is so offensively stupid that I really don't feel like reading or otherwise dealing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a poor excuse for humor seeking a justification to exist as an article. What is absolutely pathetic is the circular nature of this game -- someone attempts to create a silly internet "meme" on Youtube for attention; someone else in need of attention by any means attempts to get it by repeating the "meme" out in public. Someone else in need of attention creates an article regarding same. Stop the cycle of silliness. This is not a cultural phenomenon worthy of a two-sentence paragraph on Wikipedia, let alone this 13,000-byte attempt to justify an article. Find something worthy of your time and Wikipedia's servers on which to spend your free time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This comment is an invocation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't like it, but I think you rather missed the point of my comment in your zeal to defend your re-creation of this article from deletion. My point is rather more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When the Wikipedia article becomes the primary source for this content on the internet, and the subject is of obviously dubious notability, then the existence of the Wikipedia article becomes the circular reason for perpetuating this silliness by others -- which wasn't worth a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG in this first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning Delete~~. I came here from the ping. My gut reaction is rather like what Dirtlawyer1 just said. I just ran a search engine search for the page name, and I would prefer never to do it again, and (aside from the WP page being the first result returned), all the hits that I found in the first several pages of search results were website mentions on sites that discuss memes or discuss "oh look at that!", and so forth. For WP:GNG purposes, I would want to also see some mentions in something like mainstream news stories or commentary in something that might be vaguely scholarly, and I didn't find it. Maybe another editor will, but I don't think that a bunch of web postings really establish ongoing independent interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect instead. I've changed my mind because of the ongoing coverage by the CBC and others. (In my heart, I'd like to vote IDONTLIKEIT, but that's not how things work.) I can no longer argue that deletion is required on the basis of GNG. However, that does not mean that there must be a standalone page either. We can use editorial judgment about that. And it seems appropriate to include it as a listing within a broader page, but not as a standalone page, with protection against recreating the standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just coming back to reaffirm after the subsequent discussion that my position continues to be to Redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It falls short of an true internet phenomenon and is little more than trivia. The phrase was created as part of a self-promoting viral marketing campaign. The phrase itself is notable enough, but since we're not the news, we don't need an article that documents every indiscriminate use of this inane phrase as if we were a Twitter feed. - Mr X 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or possibly redirect. It's different from the original: it's considerably worse, with the added material producing many more BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would like it removed, because I do not think that it is good humor. It is just an internet troll that started in 2014 and is demoralising to women. Seriously, we are just wasting time making this article that is absolutely degrading to women. This falls under, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCENSORED. So therefore it should be deleted. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Obviously. Edison (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Either I've lost my sense of humour or this crap's seriously unfunny- Clip's old, Joke's old, No one cares, Anywho fails NOTNEWS & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither notable nor encyclopedic as memes go. No opinion on a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Delete, just because the articles contents are no longer "hip" does not mean that it was/is not notable. Lets go through the general criteria of WP:NN. Does it have significant coverage? Y, Are there reliable sources? Y Are there independent sources? Y. it is important to note WP:ARTN. Also, I think a number of editors here are forgetting WP:NTEMP. Abbott and Costello's "who's on first" is still notable, yet I am certain that a number of people have no idea what that skit was about. I see NO wikipedia guidelines that indicate this article should be deleted. Is the title atrocious? Y Does it seem a bit ridiculous? Y, yet none of those restrict the creation/existence of this article. We are an open encyclopedia, not a reserve of which topics we think are interesting or contemporary. That said, I would support moving it to where the title is fixed appropriately with the correct capitalization. Jab843 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC) I still stand by I think our emotions about the subject are overruling our innate objectivity, that said, it does fail a number of guidelines. Jab843 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please review Wikipedia:Speedy keep; there is no applicable "speedy keep" criterion here. Most of the "delete" comments above specifically cite the lack of significant coverage of the meme itself per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, which are perfectly valid reasons for deletion under our notability and suitability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- reviewed policy, you are correct on the speedy part, I though it merely meant strongly. That said, if you go through WP:GNG, it does meet some of the guidelines prescribed there. It does have a great deal of coverage. If the the article referred to something positive and non-controversial, we would probably not be siting here discussing it, given the excess of 3rd party information on the subject. Is it for us to decide? Jab843 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Ok, seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS, taking me a bit to get back into the swing of things. Updated vote. Jab843 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article to substantiate this topic's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked at the cited sources. The most substantial of them (such as the New York Times article) are about the football player who got suspended, rather than about the phrase. It's true that there is a small spate of Canadian news media mentions, mostly but not entirely in the CBC, and I'm not sure what to make of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, what are your reservations about the CBC stories? The April 24, 2015 story and the November 13, 2014 story, for example, are about the phrase itself. The meme has also received coverage in Esquire and the Huffington Post. The Esquire and Huffington Post articles are not cited in the Wikipedia article, but I will add them soon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean it as reservations. More like I just am not sure yet what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star is a major newspaper in Canada's largest city, and had actually interviewed the "creator" of this unfortunate "forced meme". The Globe and Mail is also one of Canada's newspapers of record. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect while this does have some claims for notability, the subject matter makes it difficult for me to support. Also this notability may well be nebulous, depending on how much notability is ascribed to internet memes. I don't believe it to be news as the meme has survived since January 2014. It is also listed at List of Internet phenomena, and a single line is all that may be needed. All things considered redirecting and protecting seems the best option. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notecardforfree has it correct. I vigorously defended this article in the first AfD to no avail (but also see the sources and comments I made there), but my points still stand, and more recent things like the CBC articles show its a continuing trend. If this wasn't such a vile trend, no one would dream this should be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I would like to request that the closing admin be sure that they not factor opinions surrounding the subject matter into the decision. Yes, the meme is annoying. But it's clearly had at least 5 more minutes of fame then it should have had. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet phenomena and protect I could care less about the title, and remind some here that WP:NOTCENSORED is there for a reason. The key factor that in my view will determine this one is WP:NOTABILITY, it has some but not enough for a stand alone article at this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think the phrase is truly awful and misogynistic, and that the people who say it are immature jerks. I don't at all want to understate that. Therefore it's very difficult for me to support keeping the article but personal taste is not a reason for deletion. The article has plenty of reputable sources and is written well. – Hshook (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tryptofish, Mrjulesd, and Knowledgekid87. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. De Guerre (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I come to Wikipedia as an authoritative source about things that I cannot make head or tail of elsewhere. Of course it is unfunny, misogynistic and disreputable, but we do not have to approve of everything which is described on Wiki. The Holocaust is worse than FHRITP, but that does not mean we remove the article. Wikipedia needs to guard its independence as a source of reliable and helpful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Nathan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary and Know Your Meme tend to be far more informative than Wikipedia on non-encyclopedic topics like this. De Guerre (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised to see this listed only on the Internet discussions page -- I've since added more project tags. This is far beyond a mere Internet meme at this point. In Canada, it has become a notable broadcast media problem and controversy. The activity is repellent to me as a male with a brain, but it's notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Temporary notability.The Avengers (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were so, Wikipedia:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. If it has been notable at any time, it remains so, for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if Renamed otherwise delete. My initial reaction was to delete, but I realized that "Fuck her right in the pussy" is not what this purported notable phenomenon is about. Almost none of the cited sources actually use the phrase "Fuck her right in the pussy". Instead, they talk about "FHRITP meme". So, I suggest renaming the article as FHRITP meme and explain the meaning of FHRITP in the first sentence of the lede. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NOTCENSORED. They are censored, Wikipedia is not. In fact, you'll notice that the article itself only uses the full phrase about 3 times, with the rest using the acronym or generically using "the phrase" only. The phrase is the meme. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't have said it better. Daily papers can't use the whole meme, which is why they do that. Are we going start using asterisks in article names that have dirty words? What the f***? To base retaining a notable article on it being censored is completely contrary to policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me to check that the abbreviation is, nonetheless, a redirect to the full meme, and it already is. However, I see that FHRP is something entirely different, and I shudder at the thought of a disambiguation page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to my position because I'm not making a censorship argument. The article is not about the phrase "Fuck her right in the pussy" but about the origin and spread of a meme. How are we to name this meme? We have to use the name used in the sources. It happens to be that the meme is referred to as "FHRITP", so like it or not WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we should use FHRITP meme as the article name. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity and being recognizable are also factors in choosing an article title. We use the full name because the uttering of the phrase is the meme. It's like More cowbell. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem with the article name as it stands is that the article is not about Fuck her right in the pussy but rather about a meme. Now, most of the reliable source don't refer to this meme as "Fuck her right in the pussy" but rather as "RHRITP", which is recognizable and how it is commonly referred to in reliable sources. So, the first choice in a new name is RHRITP meme. The current title could be improved by renaming it to Fuck her right in the pussy (meme) but that would be on somewhat uncertain ground because the meme is referred to in reliable sources as RHRITP meme. However, I could accept latter name change. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not so much an internet meme as an excuse for public displays of misogyny. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it has still received significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referring to WP:NOTCENSORED, this article should remain, whether misogynistic or not. It is properly sourced and was significant enough to become a minor social phenomenon, and its popularity remains on social networks such as YouTube and Facebook. This article uses completely reliable sources, and the fact that imitation of the meme subsequently made it onto various news stations is also notable. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a serious attempt to flesh out the sentence in the lead concerning the fact that it "spurred discussion over whether use the phrase constituted sexual harassment and public humiliation of women." It's just a collection of news stories cobbled together, WP:OR ultimately. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's continuing international coverage in mainstream media such as The Independent and so the topic is clearly notable. There are also obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with videobombing which could use more content. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 09:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's in Hong Kong by James L. Watson

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

This appears to be a summary of an academic paper. While this might be a great paper in its own right, Wikipedia does not maintain summaries of academic papers unless they are notable and have multiple sources. WayfaringWanderer (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as useless academic essay that fails to demonstrate why subject is important —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Interactive

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

not notable, google search brings no independent coverage results. per WP:CORP, notability is not inherited. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same rationale as above, I've never seen so little information on a company Appable (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon a cursory search the only major independent coverage I see is [8]. The article creator lacks clue in a major way, including non-existent categories; probably a COI entry. That said, if there is actually more significant coverage in independent RSs that I am not aware of, I could switch my !vote. Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG by a long way. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting companies. SmartSE (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fails WP:NOTPROMO because it's written fairly neutrally. It's not notable, but I don't think it's overtly promotional or only on Wikipedia as an advertisement for the company. Appable (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptionsabout african history

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

Doesn't seem like a Wikipedia article. A lot of "We" in the article, and because of this (among other reasons) it would need to be fundamentally re-written in order to qualify for notability. ~ Preceding post created by larsona ^//Talk// 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:Original research. It reads a lot like an academic essay, which is not the appropriate tone for Wikipedia. If one really had a strong case for its notability, it either must be substantially rewritten, or better off as a subsection in the main History of Africa article. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say "academic essay" is giving it too much credit. Reads like a high school WP:ESSAY, which the author has then copied, quite badly, into Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is so bad it is hardly even an essay. It is badly written. If it has been better, one might have considered merging it as a historiography section in History of Africa article, but it is too dreadful for anything but deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poor essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this articles is poorly written, and needs more sources. But I don't think that's a reason to delete it, it just needs to be improved. There are a lot of other articles on misconceptions about various topics. I'm sure that a competent expert can easily find sources that give this articles its requisite notability. I've added a template saying the article is in need of an expert to improve it. Joseph Clay, Jr. (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary with other articles. This is a fork, and a poor one at that. DreamGuy (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sigelman

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

Autobiographical post, WP:COI issues, notability issues, this bio/press release is being used all over the web for promotion of the subject. Assuming notability could be established this would still need total re-write by neutral 3rd party. JamesG5 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I would have tried to speedy delete this an unambiguous spam. I'm all for WP:NOTCLEANUP but this is such a mess I'm for deleting per WP:TNT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Beagel (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Gude

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

Non-notable artist, cannot find reliable references for the claims. Ireneshih (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The artist passes GNG and has been an important figure in the community art scene in Chicago for many years. There are several sources where she is either featured or a major part of the article. The RS are easy to find if you have access to databases or use a special search. To claim that there are no reliable references is flat out wrong: even a simple Google search turned up articles proving a few of the claims. Ireneshih, I am convinced that you are not able to do a good search for references. Do you have access to databases? Do you know how to do a site-specific Google search? It's OK if you don't know how, but if you're nominating articles for deletion mere days after they are created, you need to do more due-diligence. This is the second article I've come across where I find that you have not done WP:BEFORE in a thorough manner. I think you need to be a little more conservative with your nominations in the future, please. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep has won both state level awards for her artwork and national awards for her teaching. Has a career spanning decades with numerous articles over time indicating her importance to public art. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done, as a brief search and adding those references to the file show. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Not a valid reason for AfD nomination. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lynch (footballer)

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

it is effecting my current job search. Seanlynchpin (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Sean Lynch (footballer)

Speedy close. Irrelevant, possible joke nomination. Not a valid rationale. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compound Document Comparison

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

Promotional material for a patented technology, apparently written by the company that designed it. No links within Wikipedia, and no reliable sources. -lee (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a badly written high school essay. Seems to have been created only as a coat-rack for spamming a patent by Litéra Technology LLC. —Ruud 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A single Patent ref does not do anything to establish notability, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as an apparent POV/Promo fork of Compound document.Dialectric (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Arora Manekar

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

Considering that there are over a dozen contestants every season, I don't think there is an assertion of notability at all. There isn't a Wiki page for every winner and runners-up of Masterchef for every country Smarter1 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Not every game show contestant is notable. Searches turned up virtually nothing about this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LPS: Popular

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

This YouTube series does not appear to be notable. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources on the topic thus far. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability unless third-party sources can be found. I couldn't find any myself. This really belongs on Wikia, where the article text is copied from. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the plot. Sorry about that if the took the article text is from. --MochaMilk (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MochaMilk. The deletion proposal rationale concerns the subject's notability, so if you want the article to be kept then you need to address those concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Couldn't find any secondary sources on the YouTube series. I did find stuff on a lawsuit by Fox News though...but even that pertains to the toy, not the series. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Vikings-Dhaka Dynamites rivalry

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

Five matches and this is notable? I call this fancruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No such rivalry exists. In fact, Chittagong Vikings and Dhaka Dynamites are newly founded teams yet to play a match! 59.93.229.98 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be yet another editor who has misunderstood "rivalry" to simply mean "the head-to-head record between two teams". BTW if the article should happen to be kept, there is no reason for it to contain the entire current squads of the two teams - that is in no way germane to the supposed "rivalry".......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone and ChrisTheDude. Aspirex (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raftaar (1975 film)

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

No references added since creation. Musa Talk 11:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just added a {{cite book}} which nom could have added per the mandatory WP:BEFORE. The reason given in the nomination, "No references added since creation", would appear to reflect the common misunderstanding that an external link, e.g. here IMDb, is not a reference, which it is, and is hardly a policy based reason for a debate at AFD. Further a 1975 Indian film is obviously an easy target for exclusionists and may be hard to source, so pinging page creator and the Master of Film Article Resque (Dr. Blofeld—MichaelQSchmidt) for some help here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDAFD search: Raftaar Dinesh-Ramanesh -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Then what's the significance of this article? It's Wikipedia not a movie database. There is nothing in the article except general information which is taken from IMDb. That's why I think it should be deleted.--Musa Talk 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs expansion especially regarding the plot, rather than deletion.In my opinion every film or TV series should have a wiki page as significance issues are too subjective and most films aren't really significant.46.208.73.116 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expanded article with refs. Kaayay (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Thanks to the great expansion by Kaayay♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now meets WP:NFILM all thanks to the admirable work by Kaayay. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
brilliant expansion by Kaayay, must be a keep185.12.190.145 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as without doubt this 40-year-old (waaaay pre-internet) Indian film has been shown to meet WP:NF. Kudos to Kaayay for his diligence and contributions underscoring just what it means to BUILD an encyclopedia... not tear one down. Y And to the nominator, please go read WP:IMPATIENT to see that in a self-acknowledged imperfect Wikipedia which is certainly far from complete there is no real deadline that everything be perfect now, this week, this month, or even 10 years from now. And while we are grateful that it was improved, AFD is not the place to force work by others. If anyone wishes to speedy keep and close this, it would not be taken to DRV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NFILM, we really have to keep an eye on this WP:RECENTISM tendency to put an unneeded stinkeye on anything pre-google. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Crystal

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

Not notable. No source can be found. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references related to this were found in a custom WP:VG/RS Google search. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG --The1337gamer (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Sinon. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinon (Sword Art Online)

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

Sword Art Online is among my favorite anime, but sadly I don't think Sinon is notable enough to have her own article (she hasn't really been covered in reliable coverage). Nominating this for deletion instead of requesting a merge as the article is pure fancruft and any decent material is already at List of Sword Art Online characters (which itself needs work). Not opposed to a redirect, although given that people would have to type "(Sword Art Online)", a more plausible redirect would be Shino Asada (which already exists as a redirect). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article reads like it was copied from the Wikia, especially with a Relationships section. No sourcing. No coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. No notability; is she even a main or title character, when she is way low on the List of Sword Art Online characters list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Sinon per below. Thanks Calathan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am convinced that Sinon isn't a major character in the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Sinon per below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at minimum. She was the central character of that arc. Definitely a major character who in future arcs becomes one of the regular characters. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Sinon. She seems to be a major character in the second season of the show (for example, her name shows up in List of Sword Art Online II episodes 63 times, and she is pictured front and center in the page image on that page). Unless anyone finds sources that show real-world notability then the article shouldn't be kept as a stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap, and I don't see any reason to not to have a redirect. I personally often type things with parenthetical disambiguators expecting to get a redirect to wherever Wikipedia actually covers the subject, so I think "Sinon (Sword Art Online)" is a reasonable redirect that would actually be useful to some users. Calathan (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndianCashback.com

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

Lacks notability - all sources are press releases or otherwise affiliated with the company, and I'm unable to find any secondary sources about this company/website. Contested prod, and previously declined speedy. bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no mention on secondary, WP:RS, just lots of self-promotion on social media etc. Norvoid (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a run-of-the-mill site. Start-up PR does not bring notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet notable with no convincingly better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability given in the article. Note, I am the admin who reviewed and declined the speedy deletion request. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per talk page. ----MarkYabloko 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely promotional and self-serving. Search brings up nothing reliable. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above reasons. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frederick

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

I can't see why there is a dab page for Lord First Name when none of these men would be called Lord Frederick but rather by their last name. This just makes search harder. Also delete redirects Lord Fred and Lord Freddie. This is similar to the Bishop George and Father George nominations earlier. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As none of these people are peers but are using Lord as a courtesy title, one would not normally refer to them by their surname (e.g, "Lord Doe") but rather by their full name or given name (e.g, "Lord John Doe" or "Lord John"). For example, see Debrett's advice on addressing the son of a duke. Graham (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

: Interesting re the naming protocols as per Debrett's, and I basically agree - however this seems to suggest that the correct way to use this courtesy title is "Lord firstname surname". Is anyone really going to be looking for Lord Frederick Windsor via Lord Frederick - and what about all those other sons of nobility that are not listed? Are we to have a disamb page for every firstname with a courtesy title? Dr Nick, Mr Ted, Professor Pete? That can't be a workable solution, surely. JMWt (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct was delete, but after further thought, I'm undecided. This convention does pop up in 19th century English literature, and we do have lists like Saint Francis (disambiguation) and General Lee (disambiguation), which include various people. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that a modern person would search that way, and it would open the floodgates to Lord Henry (disambiguation), Lady Alice (disambiguation), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In actual fact many of these people will be referred to in contemporary sources only by their title and first name. It will frequently either be assumed that the reader knows their surname from the context or their surname will be buried elsewhere in the source and all subsequent uses will be this abbreviated style. I therefore think it's a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. The nominator doesn't appear to understand that this style is only used for the sons of a duke or marquess, and peers and their relatives rarely used or were referred to by their surnames unless disambiguation was needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_Edward Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Dawson

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

Certainly speedy and PROD material with its current state and frankly I found nothing better than this, this, this, this and this. Notifying LaMona and DGG who may have some insight with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Meets WP:PROF. Not speedy in the least--asserting the publication of a book except a non self published book, is enough to pass speedy. Not prod, because there are references. WP:PROF is passed by being an authority in one's field: Sole author of Mongrel Nation, U. Michigan Press, a first rate academic publisher, with the book in 1037 WorldCat Libraries [9]. Tho that;s not a formal criterion ,this is a very high count for any academic book from a university press, and there are undoubtedly reviews to be found, or so many libraries wouldnt have bought it. Sole author of a significant textbook, The Routledge concise history of twentieth-century British literature, in several hundred libraries. Editor of a number of other books, with counts in the hundreds. Professor of English at CUNY Grad Center, a decent PhD -granting university. What the article needs is expansion. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, I think you mean CUNY, DGG... — sparklism ^hey! 14:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm going to disagree with DGG here. The polices for academics are pretty clear. Just publishing obviously isn't notability. I don't see having the book in libraries is any proof of being an authority in ones' field. That book is only cited in G-Scholar by 59, which does not indicate a great impact on the field. The other criteria are things like: named chair; awards; highest position in the field. What I see here is just an average, or maybe a bit above average, professor. Delete LaMona (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, the average professor is an assistant professor at an undergraduate or master's college who has published one book or two papers. And citation counts depend on the subject: 59 isnt much in biomedicine; it's very high in literature. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, which makes this person possibly above average, but not necessarily notable. If, for example, it could be shown that the Routledge book is used as a text in many courses, that would be a plus. And I do think that you lean too much on numbers whose meaning isn't at all precise. The person still needs to meet WP:ACADEMICS and I'm not convinced that publishing alone is sufficient to stand out. (Note that the MOngrel Nation book is an ebook, so many of those library holdings could reflect ebook service subscriptions, not specific selection. I haven't looked to see what services it is in, however. This is why mere numbers don't tell the story.) Unfortunately, we don't have data to compare to. As I've said before, the main comparison that I have is that a book of mine is in more libraries than that, but it's a matter of buying profiles, not a testament to my personal importance. LaMona (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several books with very respectable holdings statistics, including several published by first-tier presses like DUP. We have always accepted this kind of proof of notability under WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep more or less per DGG and Agricola44. The criteria cited in their arguments are more accurate indicators of coverage satisfying the GNG than many of our formal SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dawson passes AUTHOR because Mongrel Nation got reviewed in multiple RS. The reviews were particularly flattering, but that's not our metric.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Raisor

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

I actually considered speedy and PROD as there's not much here and the best I found was only this and this (hardly much to save this). This honestly also hasn't improved since starting in December 2010 and there are no better signs of it happening. Notifying past user LadyofShalott and also DGG, Tokyogirl79 and LaMona who may have some authors insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Two Bram Stoker awards is notability. That it hasn't improved in recent years is a reason to work on it not delete it. I really do not think we should ever be using "no improvement since ...." as a deletion rationale--WP has no deadline. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a while, but I managed to find some reviews of his work and I will also note that Raisor's work is routinely placed in "best of" compilations like this one. It wasn't the easiest task finding these since a large bulk of his work was published before the Internet and archiving coverage on the Internet were really things, but I think that there's just enough to assert at least a weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, re article improvements by User:Tokyogirl79, also these show that Locus had a review[10] and Necrofile another one[11]. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bram Stoker Award(s), also the reviews added recently meet WP:AUTHOR. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Gambit

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

I came across this via a post at the book WikiProject where Marchjuly expressed concern over the series' notability.

A search brings up nothing to show that this self-published series is notable enough for an article. It seems to exist, but per WP:ITEXISTS, existing does not automatically grant notability. From what I can see the series hasn't gained any sort of coverage or reviews from reliable sources, nor has it placed on any of the notable bestseller lists like the NYT. (Merchant lists are specifically excluded from WP:NBOOK.) The sources on the page are entirely unusable, as they're predominantly merchant sources (which are generally considered inappropriate to add to Wikipedia in any format) and the author citing himself - but without any actual links to external sites to back up the claims. There's also a link to Goodreads, but since that site relies very heavily on user submitted materials (it's not that hard to become a librarian and submit material) the site is unusable as even a trivial database-esque source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see where this passes WP:NBOOK at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tired looking for better sourcing for the series as a whole and for the individual books, but could not find anything at all which provides the significant coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google Books does have some pages about the individual books, but not sure if that is really enough in and of itself to show notability, especially for something which seems to be self-published. I also couldn't find anything on the author other than social media pages and some mentions on Amazon or Goodreads pages, so it doesn't seem as if they would satisfy WP:BASIC making a possible merge of the series article into an author's article unlikely. Will be happy to change !vote if others are able to find better sourcing, but I don't believe such sources appear to exist per item "D" of WP:BEFORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, fails WP:NBOOK, the complete lack of acceptable sources indicates lack of notability, so there is no rationale to keep. Self-published from a not-significant author who states at his website "I have invested a lot of money, time, and effort to bring these to you..." and "They contain a story which Colin thinks is worth the telling and to which task he set his inexperienced hand". --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~new~~ list-article on alternative history book series: List of alternate history fiction#Novel series, specifically to anchor at List of alternative history fiction#Red Gambit. This series sounds interesting to me; so what if an author is contributing an article about the topic; it is hardly likely this person is actually profiting if their time is valued at all, this is NOT a case of commercial promotion of the bad kind. The standard for inclusion of a list-item is lower than that for a standalone list...the standard can be defined by editors at the list-article itself. Redirecting to a list-article (and creating a list-article if needed), rather than deleting, is an under-used, more friendly (i.e. less in-your-face, destructive, newbie-biting) alternative in AFDs. Keeping the edit history in a redirect is a nice compromise that makes the information available for use in editing the list-article. ~~New list-article being drafted at Draft:List of alternative history books, intended to be moved to List of alternative history books.~~ The list-article topic is clearly acceptable and ~~it is surprising to me that there is no such list created yet (though there is a list of winners of an annual award in this area)~~ and in fact it does exist as an article. --do ncr am 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It's interesting is not a legitimate argument in deletion discussions, although I like User:doncram's suggested redirect, keeping in mind WP:Source list and WP:LISTN for their inclusion, and that other editors may delete their entries from such a list without suitable citations (although I note that it already has lots of redlinked/no article titles). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks @Doncram: for an alternate perspective. I had already stated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Red Gambit "I messaged the editor/author - deliberately without a standard warning, recognising a type of newbie, so don't bite - advising as best I could, but didn't want to be presumptive that it would not survive as it's not my usual topic area". Prior to this, on assumption of GF that he thought he was doing right, the author may have (again) tried to write a bio-type article about himself, so I had already considered the past, present and future. But wouldn't your suggestion set a dangerous, although firstly low-profile, precedent considering the first two Google entries? I know there as Google consultants at large and this is one major headache with Wikipedia articles showing high search results. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to argue against redirecting. While it may seem like it'd be a nice thing to do, the overall problem here is that this self-published series has nothing to show that it's ultimately notable enough for an article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every series ever published and many (if not most) list articles now require that the listed names/topics have articles themselves. This is done in order to keep a list article from becoming a free-for-all where any person who self-publishes could list their book. This means that the list will be forever incomplete and also prone to self-promotion. We've had list pages in the past where there were hundreds of non-notable authors, clubs, books... none of them merited an article and listing all of them actually did more harm than good because it made it that much harder for people to find the notable series - especially since the longer pages made it more difficult for the page to load in general. Limiting list pages to only include series that are notable or have notable authors is pretty much a necessity - especially in situations like this one where it seems unlikely that the series or author will ever become notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Per the guidelines, this simply fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I agree Tokyogirl79's rationale for non-redirect as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find the coverage necessary for this to pass either GNG or NBOOK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Busways standard vehicle types

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

Prod removed. No indication of any notability for the list of bus types used by a specific bus company. Fram (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just can't see any independent source taking an interest in this kind of detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the Fleet section of the main article, which is not terribly long. I don't think this meets the notability requirements for a standalone list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Florida. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Alumni Association

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

Not separately notable; the refs are essentially all just about specific gifts from specific benefactors. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is necessary and redirect to University of Florida as this may not be independently notable but it can certainly be moved to the university's article. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would have to agree with @SwisterTwister: on this one. While associations can be independently notable, there is nothing that would show this one to be independent of the university. Merge what can be and get rid of the rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect. Not independently notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Cesca

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

Vanity bio of a nn businessman Staszek Lem (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless he goes by another name, there is absolutely no press I could locate that could remotely be used to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek army

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

Per WP:NHOCKEY Magnolia677 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not yet meet WP:NHOCKEY; has played in the AHL, but not 200 games to meet criterion #3. Also fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has only played three games of minor pro hockey, he fails WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mint 3D

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

Non-notable game engine. All I can find are trivial mentions. Also, this article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user. Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This can be speedied as an article created by a sockpuppet evading their block/ban, so I'm going to go ahead and do that and close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Islamic Republic of Iran Army. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic of Iran Army Day

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

Sources are weak and article lacks context. I don't believe this is worthy of speedy or prod, but I'm also not sure it should be kept, so I want to put it up for discussion. WayfaringWanderer (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To Islamic Republic of Iran Army. A stub article that describes a day dedicated to another stub article just doesn't seem to add to the value of the encyclopedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources. I'll continue next weekend.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per CNMall41. A separate article can be recreated if, at some future point, there is sufficient material. Bondegezou (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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