Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 October	27 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henk van de Ven

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

References consist of three news articles about his election, council confirmation of mayoralty, opening a museum, and a self-published source. These do not satisfy the criterion of "significant press coverage" as required in WP:POLITICIAN. If all he has done is to get elected and open a museum, notability has not been established. WWGB (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous. The reason that the references are so low is because that it is still in development! There is also "significant press coverage" as well. Notability is assured. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I eagerly await further "significant press coverage", other than the revelation that he plays golf! WWGB (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayor of reasonably large city, sufficient sources to pass GNG, should have been tagged for expansion and additional referencing rather than being nominated for deletion. This kind of nomination of a notable person because the nominator can't be arsed doing any research is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "arse", as you so eloquently put it, has searched for evidence that the subject is more than a regional political hack. My arse could not find any further evidence. WWGB (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'regional political hack' I hope you mean mayor of Albury. You either haven't done enough research or don't like Albury. I don't think the latter is true. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have currently been doing a lot of edits to improve the page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few sources regarding his suspension from a local golf club but I can't find the sort of coverage that is required by WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are others; keep looking. Think of it like a plane taking off. More and more should start showing up soon/now. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway, all that stuff about golf is slightly dated. There are more sources out there, however + see The Drover's Wife and my above comments. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article meets the standards required. What's more to say? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it meets the standards is not proof that it does. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm open to convincing here, but I don't see the coverage myself. I don't think being mayor of Albury makes him automatically notable, especially as it's not a directly elected position. The creator says "there are others: keep looking". Well, OK, I've looked, without success. Maybe you could actually provide some? What is in the article right now is not sufficient. It's true that it's incumbent upon AfD participants to do some research themselves, but it's also true that it's hardly useful to withhold evidence if you have it (especially if it helps your cause!). Frickeg (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I can find with a Google search. BTW I have found no written ones yet.:

[1] *[2] *[3] *[4] *[5] *[6] *[7] *[8] *[9] *[10] *[11] *[12]*[13]*[14]*[15]*[16]

I also have seen a few articles with fewer. A bad example, a better example, another, R. Kandaswami and Stephen Canessa. I'm sure there are plenty more. None of these get over 3 sources, compared to my 16! All I have to do now is get information from them and add that to the article. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not an argument for retention. The sources you've provided do not, by my reading, constitute "significant and independent" coverage per WP:GNG. I would want to see a degree of coverage from a non-local media body, say the SMH. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References van de Ven as deputy mayor, and this is non-local. This too. The article now cites a primary secondary and tertiary source. BTW is this self-published source? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality, not the quantity, of the references is what is important. This source was added as a non-local citation[17] to "van de Ven was first elected to Council in 2004 and then served four terms as Deputy Mayor", but all it supports is "van de Ven was" and "Deputy Mayor". It's redundant as the existing citation already supports the sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tertiary source? I am intrigued. What would that be? WWGB (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While making my last post I noticed that some of the content in the article had been copied almost word for word from this page, which constitutes a copyright violation. Accordingly, the content has been removed, leaving only two sentences in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made a mistake. There is no tertiary. But I am working on emulating the copy-and-pasted information to Wikpedia. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And This source does support he was deputy mayor for a while along with this page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you two even seen t h e s e? They all have 3 refs or less! The Henk van de Ven page has 6 for a lede and an infobox!! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National and state politicians are inherently notable. They require a minimum of one source to prove they filled that role. Local pollies, on the other hand, have a higher burden of proof. To be notable they are people about whom "significant press coverage" has been written, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. WWGB (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have! I have already shown you my list which is written by at least one non-local source and in-depth. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, Koavf himself edited the page. BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's the quality of the references, not the number. Simply adding sources doesn't prove notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are of quality. Two government ones, one self-published the rest are a mix of more than one news source. Notability is proven. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. You said BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox as if this was in some way impressive. It's not. There are TV episodes with more refs and an infobox. Of the sources in the article, there are two from Albury City Council confirming his position on Council. This is not unusual for councillors. There is another from a local newspaper also confirming his election by other councillors. Also not unusual. The same newspaper editor also tweeted about the election, and this tweet is repeated in the newspaper article. Together these really count as just a single source. Then there is a press release about the Murray Art Museum Albury getting a facelist. Van de Ven is not the subject of that press release and his mention does not constitute significant coverage. Similarly, the source from psnews.com.au addresses the museum's facelift and the mention of van de Ven is not significant coverage in that source either. The ENZED source is just a staff directory, so it isn't significant. The two Albury City Council sources and the ENZED source are primary sources. They are not independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Of all the sources, only the newspaper report/tweet really goes to establishing notability. I actually found better sources online for me, and I'm mentioned in two Wikipedia articles by name. Just because you can find sources for someone doesn't mean those sources establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a few hours to form a reply. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Borderline archive source? That's independent. And the MAMA article references van de Ven being mayor and opening the museum which means he is doing mayoral duties. And I'm sure they will be a few written sources I haven't even found yet. You are just bedding Wikipedia policy to suit your needs. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put some context around this gentleman. He was elected mayor less than five weeks ago. Prior to that event, sources identify that he was a migrant, small businessman, golfer and deputy mayor. None of these are of themselves notable roles. So any notability must be derived since his election. Being a mayor is not itself notable, it is about what is achieved in the position. During those five weeks, he has co-opened a museum. We really need longer so see how his tenure unfolds. If he has significant achievements, like introducing major legislation or leading a new development, then his notability is established. After just five weeks as mayor, he has not had time to establish notability. 202.47.84.1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the "About us" page, Borderline says content is satirical, parody, factual and occasionally beyond. On the page that you linked to earlier,[18] the linked stories look very amateurish and the site owner's ABN has been cancelled. All of this makes the site look like a self-published source so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source and therefore can't be used to establish notability. As for the MAMA article, that certainly demonstrates that he was mayor but, as pointed out above by 202.47.84.1, being mayor isn't in itself notable. This is especially true when the mayor is elected by a vote of other councillors rather than by a public vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like this page is going to go. (For now). Expect this page to back in six months or so when there are more sources. Should I request deletion to speed up the process? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 23:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, because there is another keep vote. Just let the discussion run its course. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how people keep editing the article. I guess they want it to die happy. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer to keep articles if we can, so we still keep editing them in the hope that we can improve them. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe this page can stay. It certainly is much better now. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 04:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, AussieLegend and Frickeg. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above, he does not meet NPOL and nothing comes up when I search. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:47, 3 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 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt Kopas

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

Article lacks sufficient support to establish notability. Majority of references lack independence; others are primary. Article lacks independent secondary support. reddogsix (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to confess complete bewilderness as to why somebody would write a game called Consensual Torture Simulator, but it takes all sorts and Kopas does turn up in multiple news and book hits. I have dropped some better sources into the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ritchie, when commenting on a BLP like this, please constrain your comments to notability matters, not your "bewilderness" about the subject's art form. Not least also because BLP subjects pay attention. — Scott • talk 23:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Scott: I think that came out wrong, all I meant was I've tried to improve the article, just it's been difficult as it's on a subject I'm unfamiliar with. I'm certainly not trying to belittle Ms Kopas' efforts at all and that I don't understand things is my problem, not theirs. Please give them my apologies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fringe indie notable. Further coverage.[19][20][21] - hahnch e n 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imeni Molotova

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

The place does not exist. Everything named after Molotov was forcibly renamed in 1957. There are no sources, and have never been. The coords point out to a place where there is no settlement, just mountains. I tried to search (in Russian) whether such a place existed and was not successfull. There was Molotovabad in Osh Oblast, which was indeed renamed in 1957, but I am not sure this is the same thing. If we knew that such place existed and what it was renamed to, we could replace the article by a redirect, but for the time being I am unsure what the redirect target would be. The creator did not edit Wikipedia since 2009. Ymblanter (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose if there's no better improvement and alternative. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only place I found with this name was in Yakutsk, but even that had nothing on the map. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Cannot find anything to correlate this place with an actual place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 2 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) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acabion

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

Failed crowdsourcing project; "sources" are either regurgitated press releases, or the subject's own website and publicity. Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging Chriswaterguy. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Thanks for the ping. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show it passes either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 3 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) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Ballard

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

A local judge who fails WP:GNG. The only reference for this article is a paid obituary. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything in News about him. As always, I am open to changing my vote if presented with more sources. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. The Avengers (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards. Local judges are usually not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable judge on two levels of court; no more Internet information is available on him for some reason. He appears never to have had an opponent; he is not listed in any of the election returns from the Secretary of State's office in Baton Rouge. When candidates are not listed on this valuable site, it means they ran unopposed. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment @Billy Hathorn: False claims in paid obituaries take place. Here is an example[22]. A baseball player's family claiming he was the #1 pick. Unfortunately the first draft of baseball players took place after their relative had already appeared in the majors. A more famous case, is the man who claimed to be the ex major leaguer Bill Henry[23]. He had his family and friends fooled. Back to Ballard. If this Judge is notable, there would be something out there with his name on it. A ruling in a case, something. So frankly it appears he either isn't a high ranking judge, or the obituary claims are false. As you should know, paid obituaries fail WP:RS. There is no evidence of this man's notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is a case where he represented a party in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. [24]
Here is an appeal case in the same court that refers to a ruling of his. [25]
And APPEAL FROM FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CADDO PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE JOHN R. BALLARD, J." - affirming. [26] & by extension 4 more.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the WP:SPA comments, near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step Forward Pakistan

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

Non-notable organization. There are no reliable independent sources. Organisation has good cause of spreading love and peace as they are claiming in article but it is non-notable. Article is created by user named Usmanawan68 and founder of this organization has same name as claimed in article. Human3015^TALK 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has much more information with valid reference. This is most popular organization in Pakistan and people need information (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan9127 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 October 2015 — Zeeshan9127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Step Forward Pakistan is a popular organization which is working positively in major institutes of Pakistan. So i support this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanahmad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Namanahmad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This Page Step Forward Pakistan is a very popular NGO. Article has proper information and source. So it will be a great step to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrana ayub (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Samrana ayub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Above "keep" voters doesn't have any other contribution than commenting here. I am not against this organization and I think any good work should be encouraged but I found this page while New Page patrolling and it is just duty of an editor to nominate things for deletion which fails WP:GNG. I think creator of this article should provide some independent reliable sources. It maybe too soon to create page on this if this organization is new, I think deletion of this page will be inspiration for this organization because they will think that they should do more social work in large scale so that independent media will cover them, will write about them and Wikipedia article can be created on this organization someday. Best luck.--Human3015^TALK 19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The organization clearly fails WP:CORP. I cannot find any significant coverage on it. That is all that matters in this discussion. Dispensing with the WP:SPA (possible sockpuppet) "keep" arguments: A "valid" reference is not coverage, existence does not equal notability, popularity does not equal notability, and good works do not equal notability. If no signifcant reliable coverage exists that is independent of the organization, then Wikipedia cannot keep the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPI initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usmanawan68 ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google News returns no hits for this organization [27]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen many of projects by this NGO. I suggest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. All the keep votes are on the lines of "it's an NGO", which doesn't matter on Wiki- also, the number of SPA suggests meat/WP:SOCK/sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches say it ails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 2 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! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Creative Media

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

Fails WP:CORP notability. Notability is not inherited from film awards. Brianhe (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the best I found was this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deeper searches:

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: "Dag Creative" "Dag Creative Media" "Rana Sarka"

Comment: It seems this company gets a lot of mentions in multiple sources. While I am not so willing to simply suggest a delete, the article needs to be expanded and far better sourced for me to opine a keep. WP:SEP under WP:ITJ anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases I'm eager to expand tne article after good sources are uncovered, but because of WP:BOGO, not this one. See WP:COIN#Raju Kapuria and others (permlink) for reasons why I think this article is tainted. Others may have a different conclusion, which is fine, but this is mine. – Brianhe (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 2 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! 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cundari Group

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

Non-notable company heavily edited by SPAs that has been WP:BOMBARDed with unreliable links, mostly from company itself. The two reliably sourced links are trivial mentions. I'm guessing some of the editors have a COI with the advertising agency. If article is kept it will need to be heavily edited. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Though the sources are generally poor at the moment (generally niche trade mags and websites) The Globe and Mail] (a large circulation general news source) seems to have several meatier news articles about the company. They did win a top global award after all, therefore seem to have achieved some success. Unfortunately any advertising agency worth its salt will be good at self publicity, so editors will need to keep an eye on it! Sionk (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links to the "several meatier news articles" you mention? There is only one article by the Globe on the page and it's mostly about Armenia rather than Cundari. I'd consider that a fairly trivial mention, as the article provides almost no information about Cundari. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you didn't see the link I posted in my comment, e.g.[28][29][30]. Sionk (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These seem like somewhat trivial mentions, since they aren't really about the company itself (two are about BMW Canada's ad campaign). Not sure they establish notability, or give much (if any) information about the company. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now instead as although I found at the usual searches, News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing better convincing unless this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and clearly don't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aradial

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All links on the page are either from company itself or are news releases. My own searches turned up nothing about the company. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - corp article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in RS sources. A search turned up incidental mentions including IT News Africa but no singificiant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 3 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.

==

Why did you Aradial - it is a company like Aptilo, Alepo, Amdocs and entitled to be on Wikipidia! why arent you removing these (also were referenced in our publication).

We also paid continuations to Wikipedia, I see this is a monopoly with unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oe2k (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn and keep as no one ever suggested a serious delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cutkosky

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

Okay this was previously deleted per AFD-however the guy might be more notable now-but still I find this to have questionable notability, at best I would say a redirect for now. Wgolf (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ENT, I think his roles on The Unborn and Shameless (a main character on that show it appears) are sufficient to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split between weak keep or redirect to Shameless as 61 episodes so far is something but not entirely convincing of a separate article. Pinging past AfD commenters LibStar, Whpq, Ponyo and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah I am starting to think weak keep might be better-I did have the csd for previously deleted but then I was thinking he might be notable enough to have a second shot around this. Wgolf (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now per meeting WP:GNG and pushing nicely at WP:ENT, and continue growth along with his career and coverage. I opined a delete 6 years ago based upon his career being so very short and his coverage generally lacking, but suggested that the topic might be returned in that situation changes. Now that it has, we can welcome this fellow into Wikipedia. Losd of WP:SIGCOV available now that did not exist six years ago. For instance, Chicago Tribune (01-08-09) offers a quite decent and lengthy article about this actor, and we also have fine ones in Chicago Daily Herald (01-08-11), Los Angeles Times (02-24-11), Chicago Daily Herald (07-19-12), Chicago Daily Herald (04-01-14), and many more. While in 2009 sources were scarce, time has corrected that lack. Enough sources speak about and offer details on his life, upbringing, and career, that WP:BIO is now a lock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent analysis above, passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Cavarrone 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage now to meet inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw-As I said earlier-I was iffy about putting this up or not-as it was previously deleted but since he seemed notable enough now...anyway I'm withdrawing! Wgolf (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elii Geba

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

Basically open and shut for an article with a certainly unacceptable current version and my searches found nothing better than these links (hardly useful for a better article) and this has basically stayed the same since May 2006. Pinging tagger Mike Rosoft who also said "Marked as a stub - possible deletion candidate". SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is an eternal stub with no references except for her website - 9 years with no improvement. She does have an entry on AllMusic, but it only lists a single album published at ACM Productions (which appears to be a two-man "film and video production company" - unless the Google search returns a different company of the same name), and a couple of appearances on compilation albums. I don't think she meets the inclusion guidelines, so I'm afraid it's a delete from me. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as above Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly as nothing to show they pass notability criteria could be found on search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 3 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 Nabla (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ney M. de Vasconcellos

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

Questionably notable as my searches found nothing better than this and also this seems like someone else "M. de Vasconcellos" and this has simply not changed since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the absence of in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rowland

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

Notability is not inherited, no other significant claim of notability present. If this article wasn't several years old, I would have used CSD:A7. Versa geek 23:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than actually redirect to his father' article as there's likely simply not much for a better article (I actually reviewed this when it started). SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 3 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) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija Radio

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

Doesn't meet WP:BAND by any metric I can see. Press coverage seems minimal and in passing. The band itself seems defunct. Nsteffel (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and thus there are also no obvious signs of improving. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:BAND, and searches don't show it meeting the notability criteria of WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 3 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) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAU - Faculty of Engineering

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

Unsure whether this can be rescued. New article concerning a college. Appears to be pure advertisement. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT in any case and if a better article can be made, then it is taken of but the current version is simply not acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per SwisterTwister. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Ikonn

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

Almost certainly non-notable, but does have a (somewhat flaky) HuffPost article, so bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at The Guardian, I'm finding a number of foreign language sites that I cannot quickly evaluate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely if there are no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient notability; there have been too many articles of this sort for companies like this in the hP: I no longer regard it as a reliable source, as they seem to be willing to write PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not show anything to suggest they pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 3 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 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevika Film Festival

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

Doesn't appear notable. Preliminary searches has only come up with the site itself and the single source clumsily placed in the article. That source is local news and can't establish notability by itself. Nominating instead of CSD as there IS at least a single secondary source available. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD:"Jeevika Film Festival" "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival" "Centre for Civil Society" "Jeevika Campaign" Jeevika"

Keep this relatively new stub by an inexperienced new user. Sorry nominator, but while the article is quite short and lacks proper sourcing, through my own deeper searches it appears that the festival HAS received enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. Needing editorial attention is more a reason to give it to a notable topic than it is to delete it for the lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand @MichaelQSchmidt:, I have never heard of Jeevika Film Festival. I would have never known to search "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival", "Jeevika Campaign" etc. I nominated this In Good Faith. I don't know why you think I have any personal feelings on whether an article gets deleted or not. I just nominate when I see what very much appears to be a non-notable, unsourced, possibly made up subject. For an editor that isn't personally involved in Film (me), it very much passes the duck test for being a deletion-nomination-worthy article. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it myself... but then it even with it going on for some thirteen years, it does not get press in southern California. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now that I am looking through the various "other names" I still don't see the reliable sources you mentioned. Could you possibly share the "deeper search" results (or sources that you found) for the sake of discussion? I realize it is probably an issue of WP:INDAFD. Jcmcc (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toward the festival itself, there is Merinews with an authored more-than-trivial article telling us its 10th event was two years ago. Same for Hindustani Times covering its 9th inception the year before. Merinews spoke toward the 9th in some detail as well. Supporting, it is mentioned in a more-than-trivial manner in the multiple reliable sources[31][32] which speak toward various film which have won its awards. It's founding "Centre for Civil Society", itself gets enough press to meet WP:ORG... and the festival is their's. And too, under "Asia Livelihood Documentary Festival", it gets more-than-trivial coverage when spoken of in articles about the films which have won awards. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And... what I have learned is the valuable power of using WP:INDAFD for difficult to Google-search Indian topics because it develops that Google News does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've added a single source, which should help.I think it easily pass WP:GNG. Seems to be a number of varied sources for long running festival available to nipper editor, if he get's around it. It's well established. Scope creep 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wood (manufacturer)

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

Delete: as purely promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least merge to Kenwood Limited as it seems this is related. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, nothing obviously promotional (what would it be promoting?) but parts of the article may have been copied from ingenious.org.uk - cited as a source but Internet Archive only has versions of the page after the addition to Wikipedia. Peter James (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentUs

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

Article about a non-notable bit torrent search engine. Fails WP:WEBCRIT for lack of available reliable sources independent of the subject. Most sources merely mention the subject. - Mr X 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has a few mentions on independent websites, and this is enough to keep it. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is "a few mentions" an indication of notability?
Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister - Couldn't find anything either, Non notable search engine, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show the article passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 3 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. Happy to revisit if preinternet sources found Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Macklin

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. No better sources about the subject have been found since prior AfD and article creator says on the talk page they know of no better sources. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined speedy deletion of the article as a WP:CSD#G4 repost as the previous AfD was ages ago and the subject has done some additional work since then. However, all of the mentions seem to be minor, and insufficient to properly write a biography. So unless further secondary sources can be found, deletion is probably the best option (just not speedy deletion). —Kusma (t·c) 13:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, as the main author of the article I'll confirm that there seems to have been very little written about him that would qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia, unfortunately. (I can find lots that's been written about his character Bubsy for example, but very little of it actually mentions Macklin, despite the credits specifying him as the character's creator...) I thought the relative prominence of some of the wikipedia articles about his work would qualify as some measure of notability, just to have a page to tie it all together, but if not then so be it. I just hope this will be an actual deletion and not the redirect someone tried to make, so people can at least continue to search for his name across articles instead of being redirected to an arbitrary one of them. --Omgitsraven (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another example of a subject from the pre-Internet period where sourcing is primarily off-line. A GBooks search turns up a lot of references, few of which are available in more than snippet view. But this source [33], for example, gives a reasonably detailed account of one example of his work. This source [34] documents that Macklin was a Guest of Honor at a significant genre convention, indicating both stature in his field and typically indicating the existence of a program book containing a useful biography. He's almost certainly got work reviewed in comics print mags of the 1970s and 1980s, which are just not even minimally accessible online. ISFDB shows work included in two different World SF Con program books, another signal of stature in his field. There's too much evidence of notability do delete the article, even if it's not going to be east to access the sources needed to write a first-class article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the character he created qualifies as notable, then so too does the creator. Article could definitely use some work, though. But start-class quality is not, standing alone grounds for deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Nominator is not arguing to delete it due to being start-class, but because of a lack of sourcing to show WP:GNG is met (Among other policies). -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that there are no biographical sources available. The article was deleted 7 years ago because no one could find sources and no one can find sources on him now, not even the person who wrote the article. A redirect/merge to his principle work would be fine but GNG requires significant coverage of the person.
Right now this article is no different than any one of a dozen 'producers' who have nothing but their name on credits and we delete those out of hand. Even one decent biographical source would be enough to keep in this case but we need that one. Jbh ^Talk 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between "no biographical sources available" and "no biographical sources readily found online". And there's an even bigger difference between an investor who buys a producer credit on a film, and an actual creative person who shares the notability of the work they create. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any sources even identified for this person I would say keep but we do not keep biographies around just in case a source pops up. See WP:NRV - sources must at least be known to exist. Do you know of any? This same problem existed in the previous AfD and the article was deleted because of it. Jbh ^Talk 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've dug up a couple that might qualify: first, here is an excerpt from a book that discusses Macklin's experience being personally invited to a convention by the chair. It's just one section of a larger book about the convention, and while I can find other sites corroborating the book's existence I can't actually find a copy of the book myself, so I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I figured I'd at least mention it.. I've also found this interview with someone he worked with at LucasArts, that discusses Macklin's involvement in an early version of the project they worked on; would I be right that this would count as a secondary source (someone else discussing him) from a reliable publication (mixnmojo was already accepted as a source for his work on Thimbleweed Park)? --Omgitsraven (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is a potential good source it depends on if the book was published or is just a Convention flyer. The other is really just a passing mention. I spent quite a bit of time looking for biographical material. There are indexes to a lot of old comics etc that credit him and these are the kinds of publications that would have interviews/commentary but I could find nothing.

For a bit I hoped that this [35] might be him but he is a sculptor from Alberta - who incidentally has a bit of press coverage. The only thing I could find about the Ken Macklin who is the subject of the article is [36] which shows he has gotten into the self-help woo business. Lots of people like his work and mention him but only in the 'this is by Macklin', 'Macklin did good stuff', 'will Macklin ever come back' (There is/was a Kickstarter that intended to have him do some art).

I really do not think there is anything out there. Considering how often his name is brought up any existing biographical information would be noted. The comics wikis and the like do not even have blog quality write-ups on him. An admin would need to look at the old article but right now the article is probably a {{db-g4}} since nothing seems to have changed from the earlier AfD. Jbh ^Talk 14:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we all know that if it's not covered in easily spotted online sources, it can't possibly be a worthwhile subject. That's why one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "If we can't find it in a cursory Google search, it's probably not worth knowing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and last AFD. I see some arguments that Bubsy is notable, but that would be inheritance. The sources brought up in this AFD appear to be trivial mentions, such as the Google book that discusses a pilot for Nickelodeon that simply mentions him as a creator and does not discuss him at all. I don't believe taking part in conventions shows notability either, thousands of comic book artists and writers do so. Whether easy to find or not, multiple reliable third party sources must exist to show notability. We can't hold on to the article because there might be sources... someone has to know of them. -- ferret (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Maniac_Mansion#Production_and_SCUMM, where he is mentioned by name. I read through the sources linked by the other editors above and none discussed the article subject in more than passing mention. There plainly aren't enough biographical sources to write more than a shoestring list of mentions. As for the current sourcing, there are lots of primary sources but no significant coverage about the artist himself, not even in the articles for which he is supposedly notable, so R to most notable mention on WP. czar 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. I really like his work and his style is instantly recognisable, but there simply does not appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources to build an encyclopedia article around. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's going to be deleted then so be it, but I'd still strongly recommend against making it into a redirect; none of these individual articles would be a useful stand-in for his body of work, and redirecting to any of them just makes it harder for people to search for the actual references to his work that would still be on Wikipedia. It makes more sense for people to search for him and see a list of his projects in search results, than to search for him and only see Maniac Mansion which he was barely involved with. --Omgitsraven (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac Mansion has the most direct mention of Macklin on WP. If he is better known for other work, I suggest adding sources to those articles that say as much. czar 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if anything he's more associated with Bubsy, and I'd always assumed he created the character but apparently that was Mike Berlyn. Shows how much I know. However, as far as I can tell his involvement with Maniac Mansion was apparently just painting the box art. It seems kind of weird to redirect it there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh R Jain

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

No reliable sources to indicate that the subject is generally notable or notable as a person. Searching for sources found only mentions. As a movie producer, subject has only one credit, his first. That he owns the film production company does not add notability. I was not able to find any confirmation at all of his involvement in textiles or construction so not notable as a business man. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious improvement here unless anyone agrees to redirecting to that film but this has the vulnerability of being restarted again so.... SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just brief mentions, many of them in press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:45, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RackaRacka

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

Disputed CSD A7.

Non notable web property. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete A7~~ I can't spot a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with, speedy deletion is entirely inappropriate because the article contains two solid claims of significance: (1) that the YouTube channel has a very high number of subscribers, and (2) the article cites multiple reliable sources entirely about the topic. Keep due to reliable sources about the topic. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if a high number of subscribers is in and of itself significant (for example, many people could subscribe to my channel because they like my content, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way significant or notable), and citations are not claims of significance. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's significant. Adam9007 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable sources about the subject are claims of significance because of the implicit claim that the subject was notable enough to be written about, which incidentally is the essence of the notability guideline. And, if 2 million people subscribed to your YouTube channel, there would be a good chance you were notable. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, as info has been added, A7 obviously no longer applies. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Antrocent makes the argument that a large number of Youtube subscribers makes the person notable. Indeed, it might. But the person is not the Youtube channel and the Youtube channel is not the person. The channel is, broadly, the business of the person. The two are linked, but are not indivisible, and notability needs to be verified for the topic of the article. The person does not inherit notability from the channel and the channel does not inherit it from the person.
Weak delete, but not per A7: This article makes a plausible claim of significance; 1.8m YouTube subscribers + "known for". If the article cites even sub-reliable sources covering the subject, precedent is towards declining an A7 in such circumstances (the criterion was created for articles without a compelling reason to believe there are existing sources covering the topic). Nonetheless, searches only came up with tabloid, but not reliable coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I should add that the extra info was added after the A7 and AfD nominations. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As deletion discussions evolve the articles being discussed often evolve as well. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antrocent (♫♬) 10:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The brothers and their films have enough coverage for GNG. Move and rewrite to be about them instead as the channel itself has not been the focus of the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest a move to Danny and Michael Philippou - I agree with Duffbeerforme. There's significant coverage of the brothers, e.g., [37], [38], [39]. Enough to meet WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:57, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret trilogy

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

Non-notable books by an author whose biography article was deleted following AFD in 2011 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafe McGregor). Emeraude (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found that this series of books published via Lulu.com and Ulverscroft Large Print Books is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find some books listed in Amazon, but the publisher (Linford large print books) is MIA -- can't find anything about it. There are some copies of large print books in the series in libraries, but no great numbers. No reviews. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent sites

AfDs for this article:

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

Feature comparison list of BitTorrent websites that seems to consist entirely of Alexa ranks and claims sourced from the subject websites themselves. The list and the comparisons seem to be based entirely on original research. There are no reliable independent sources that establish this list as a cohesive subject. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its provide encyclopedic reference for the reader, that is nearly completely sourced via primary sources, except for website ranking on Alexa. However, what party is going to write about the websites' features? It is a listing of which common features each site has. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of the comparisons? For the list to be encyclopedic, it would surely need to be referenced to respected sources that are qualified to make such comparisons.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no change since last consensus) The article was deleted after its first nomination, then was modified extensively and was kept after a second nomination. I haven't seen anything that alters the last consensus reached save a small edit conflict. Sure, notability and the slew of byzantine guidelines that underlie it are a proxy for what articles people want in their encyclopedia, but let's at least try to pretend this isn't an arbitrary and capricious exercise hinging on who chooses to participate. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is supposed to be the threshold for inclusion. It's fine to disagree with that, and lobby to change it, but the reality is that a comparison of bit torrent lists and search engines is not a notable topic as required by WP:LISTN. It also means that comparisons in the article are original research, which is also not allowed.- Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: It's not the notability guidelines I take issue with here in particular. It's the rather cynical attempt to bypass consensus by holding repeated discussions in the hopes of getting different participants and thus, different results. The notability guidelines are merely the vehicle for that bad behavior. And not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe you may have misinterpreted the policy about list notability, which require only that the grouping the list represents be notable. Unless you're suggesting that any sort of feature comparison, such as those of Wikis, Forums, or CMS's constitute original research. But I don't think that's an argument you'd wish to make. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no change since last consensus) (subject is in the top 100 notable sites on the net, and comparisons are common on Wikipedia) --Tim (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. Renata (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the other keep rationales noted above, I find the first citation needed tag on the article page, near the top, after the sentence, "Operating a tracker should not be confused with hosting content", baffling. ...well, it's true: dogs should not be confused with cats, and, while I only play a veterinarian on TV, I am reasonably certain you don't need a cite tag for saying so.--Froglich (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No change since last consensus, notable page, it's a very visited site (stats) and in my opinion is extremely useful. rayukk | talk 17:05, 2 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. Those seeking to keep failed to cite any policy-based arguments to support their position. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and capitals with currency and language

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

I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE was written for articles like this, and I'm somewhat surprised that this article has been in existence for almost three years now without being challenged. The last thing we need is more arbitrary lists of countries (emphasis on arbitrary). Is this particular grouping useful? Quite possibly, but all the information is obviously already available here (in separate articles), as well as covered on hundreds of other websites. There is certainly no need for a stand-alone list. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose if that's the consensus but I'm not entirely sure how useful this is to kept. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Dont delete this !! This gives a list of currencies for all the countries and the wiki page is loading faster which is better than other ad-filled websites. It is very much useful for various exams in India. Whenever I search currency and capital of countries wiki in google, this comes first and helps a lot for exam preparation. From My point it is useful for exams

Prabzy2016 talk 07:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prabzy2016 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it pains me to hurt someone's chances at passing an exam. This article truly adds nothing to the encyclopedia. If I need to know the capital or the currency of any particular country, I can just go to the article on the country. I agree with the nominator -- there is no need for a stand-alone list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete We have multiple pages for leaders like Obama, Modi and others. Why cant be have such a comprehensive page for listing out all the capitals. I challenge you - If I ask you to list 150 nations capital cities, will you be opening wiki pages of 150 countries??? Doesnt your argument seem absurd?? There are lot of other fake pages to be deleted including fake IDs. Your argument seems like you want to earn some points from Wiki and you do not bother about the type of pages. ChennaiyinFC (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of national capitals in alphabetical order, List of national capitals by latitude, List of national capitals by population, List of national capitals and largest cities by country, etc. Also, List of circulating currencies, List of currencies in Asia, List of currencies in Africa, List of currencies in Europe, List of currencies in South America… IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be a copy of List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, but with random information tacked on. So there's some WP:COPYWITHIN problems as well. But not notable, and indiscriminate list (why currency and language?). FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:21, 2 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! 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Floccari

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

Biography of non-notable person. The article claims that he has won four Emmy awards but http://www.emmyonline.com/newsemmy does not mention his name anywhere that I can find; perhaps he was part of the crew for some stories that won Emmys but if so, his name is not mentioned. The sources are either primary sources, user-edited websites, or trivial mentions. Note that the article is pretty much a verbatim copy of his imdb bio. bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons stated by bonadea contributions talk. Several of the references simply include copies of tweets by the subject in articles that are about something else. I read the source that is in Italian, and it is a routine mention (one sentence). The Italian source appears to be a multi-author blog (the contributors are unpaid). David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a 4 time emmy award winner and a famous TV reporter and Actor . Why cant the page be live ? Alwayssmileguys (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did he win those Emmys and where is a reliable source (not IMDb or any user edited website) that confirms it? It's not very difficult to find that kind of confirmation, usually, but this time I've failed. As for "famous", that's a subjective statement - and again, genuinely famous people usually have sources that write about them. --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I simply see no obvious better improvement in that he has better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm guessing those Emmy awards are regional Emmys - as I found this cite: here. While not the same weight as primetime or daytime Emmys, they probably hold the same weight as the Latin Grammys do to the Grammys. The article is very poorly written. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with you on that. Latin Grammys are a national award and have same procedure as regular ones. Regional Emmys are made up of 20 different awards that are not competed nationally. It's specifically not a national award, which makes it less notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Emmys are regional Emmys, so they don't establish notability. The sources provided are trivial or non-reliable. Notability hasn't been established. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:59, 3 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) 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black icon (musician)

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

Non-notable music act. Sources either don't mention the subject or are blogs. Blackguard 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons stated by Blackguard. David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable secondary sources, or even cursory mentions [40] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. Pinging Wikicology and Jpbowen. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON.Akon was patient enough before someone with no WP:COI considered an article for him. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not show anything that meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 3 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 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Franklin

AfDs for this article:

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

Unimproved page re-added by editor over otherwise unanimous deletion decision.

Delete (from nominator). All the reasons the page was deleted remain true. (Indeed, the reinstatement of the page by the single editor who opposed deletion is rather tendentious.) No new material appears in this "new" version. When asked directly what RS's are new (and when reminded that AfD is about the subject's status and not article quality), the editor refused to answer, saying only to bring it here again. (Also, rather tendentiously, IMO.) See article's talk page and the original AfD. Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a little bit of new material here: the Telegraph India 2015 reference. Maybe that's enough to save this from a G4 speedy deletion. But like all the others, it briefly quotes the subject without being an in-depth story about the subject nor an in-depth look at the results of a study she conducted. So nothing of significance has changed since the previous time the article was nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wasn't involved in the original discussion, but there seems to be reasonable RS to make this notable. It's a bit of stub, but far more here than in many BLPs.Mattnad (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Look more carefully at the sources. Most of them (especially the bigger names among them) were there in the previous AfD. They are not the in-depth coverage of the subject (or of one of her research studies) as required by WP:GNG, but rather they include quotes by the subject with a brief gloss of who she is to put the quotes in context. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you be more specific, Mattnad? Which RS meets which notability guideline? Although some RS's point in the right direction, they don't cross the threshold. That is, there are quotes in media, but none are about the subject herself (which PROF requires. There are some few awards, but none are at the national level (which PROF requires). Etc.Barcaboy2 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of past votes, the current Franklin article is solid. She won awards such as here and here. There are numerous reliable references in the NY Times and Psychology Today (which lists Franklin as an expert) and NPR and Public Record. She has a solid research record here; this article here was cited by 206 other studies; she has been published here and here and many other places. References in Psychology Today again, in Frontline, also another Frontline, plus in the Los Angeles Times and the IB Times. There are more references in the article. Clearly, Franklin easily passes the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Possibly there is some kind of academic or professional rivalry going on here in Wikipedia, with one academic, probably a psychologist, systematically going after and trying to delete articles and viewpoints of other psychologists. While I am not an admin skilled with sockpuppet investigations, there are disturbing patterns. For example, both Barcaboy2 and User:James Cantor have this tendency to AfD articles about other psychologists, and then vote 'Delete' in addition to nominating them, such as for Randi Ettner (Barcaboy2 nominated, voted Delete, and Cantor voted Delete as well), Charles Allen Moser (Barcaboy2 nominated and voted Delete), and David Oliver Cauldwell (Cantor nominated, voted Delete). But overall the evidence for me is that articles about qualified professional psychologists are getting deleted when there are excellent references, as in the case of Franklin; similarly, the Ettner article should not have been deleted either; there are numerous references for her. Evidence of an academic rivalry between Franklin and psychologist James Cantor can be found here and it makes sense for us to wonder whether this rivalry is going on here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I requested at my talk page that NeilN or a different administrator restore the previous version of the article for comparison. Here it is: ~~User:Flyer22 Reborn/sandbox~~ this link; that's the stubbed version, though. I was remembering the non-stubbed version. During the previous WP:AfD, I think Barcaboy2 and/or Tomwsulcer, and maybe others, significantly reduced the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN also restored the larger version for comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient coverage. I added another reference to a profile in a textbook (reprinted on her website). KateWishing (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KateWishing also reformatted some of the article for a better presentation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of the above seem to be Franklin's work, web pages, etc. rather than reliable, independent sources. Likewise, minor awards cited above, like this, do not weigh significantly. References like this seem to be professional contact information – much of the material on Franklin out in the wild seems to be of this nature. Finally, her "solid research record" appears to be about an h-index of 6, although the GS listing of her publications/citations clearly contains the work of other people having the same name. Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I commented, but did not !vote, in the first AfD. I think this person passes the WP:PROF test fairly well by now, but the article itself could use more editing. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate indicia of notability, solid sourcing. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to remove some of the hyperbola. The notability is based on the publications, using the customary criterion for WP:PROF. Her most cited paper [41] has been referred to 206 times; others at 61, 52, 38, 30.... The controversy is not over this, but her criticism of Blanchard's theory of Hebephilia. However, with respect to the awards, the vaguely referred to "Distinguished Scientific Achievement (2012)" ? is from the California Psychological Association, and is therefore not a national level award [42], the vaguely referred to Guggenheim is a Fellowship to complete her dissertation,{http://www.karenfranklin.com/kf/credentials/} and the award from the Horowitz Trust is one of the 4 they awarded in 2001 [43] does not seem to be a notable award. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing. per WP:PROF.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 6234

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

Not notable aviation accident. Landing gear collapses happen all the time. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. Not even for an accidents section.--Petebutt (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that it is notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soulpepper Theatre Company

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

Article lacks any references, list of "awards" are awards received by members of this company, not by the company per se. Article requires evidence of notability as shown by multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources, not by information on gift certificates. KDS4444^Talk 14:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:V as there are no sources cited. Markangle11 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs refs, but Soulpepper is one of Canada's most prominent theatre companies. A quick search of the CBC finds 200 articles, 400 in the Toronto Star. There is also a full article in the Canadian Encyclopedia. - SimonP (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if this can be better improved. Pinging Voceditenore. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy keep Oh goodness, no. I find it hard to believe that a theatre company of similar stature from the nominator's own country would have been nominated by him. Do a Gnews search for the term ""Soulpepper." You can leave off "theatre" and "company" as they're not WP:COMMONNAME nor even WP:OFFICIALNAME, according to Soulpepper's own website (this page should be renamed). Yes, it's an unreferenced article for this highly notable theatre but Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP and there is no reason on earth for us to be wasting time with this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. No reason to waste our time if the article had been properly referenced in the first place according to terms that have been emphasized and laid out long ago. No need at all. Instead, we find ourselves here. KDS4444^Talk 21:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUST and WP:BEFORE. We find ourselves here because you brought us here, pointlessly, without a clue as to what Afd is actually for, apparently.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly obvious keep. There is plenty of coverage at a national level, and even back in 2001 this theatre company was generating media coverage internationally. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And on the subject of Soulpepper per se not winning any awards, Googling "Soulpepper + award" shows that it just won an Ontario Premier's Award for Excellence in the Arts this week, and it just won major Canadian theatre award Dora Mavor Moore Awards within the past few months. So I really have to wonder if any WP:BEFORE work at all went into this nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Let us be clear, however: the Dora awards are Toronto-based awards, and are not even Provincial in scope.) KDS4444^Talk 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Toronto theatre awards: Toronto is Canada's English theatre capital in much the same way that Broadway is for your country. Is that too local for you, too? Honestly, I'm done with this. If you had a shred of sense you'd withdraw this. But whatever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Tony Awards are New York City based and not strictly national or even statewide in scope, either, but that doesn't make them any less notable or encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs referencing improvement, but Soulpepper is one of the most notable theatre companies in Canada, full stop. Keep and flag for reference improvement. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Waves Tour

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

Recreation of tour deemed non-notable per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour. Not tagged for speedy deletion due to inclusion of references, which are mostly fan sites. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The addition of references such as these is not a substantial improvement; I would have used speedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage from independent reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 3 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (cricketer, born 1988)

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

Only "reference" is to a WP:ROUTINE listing. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by KDS4444^Talk .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better unless this can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:CRIN/WP:NSPORTS with 27(!) first-class appearances, as is already shown by the ref in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Has played first-class and List A cricket for South Australia cricket team. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN. Needs improvement, though. Johnlp (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've made some improvements that demonstrate his notability further. Harrias ^talk 09:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN, that guide which it would be nice if people were to read before wasting their time with AfD's like this. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN. 27 first class matches over 6 years easily meets the notability criteria. Terlob (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt about meeting the presumptive criteria as mentioned above, so let's improve it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly meets WP:CRIN. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per everyone else. St Anselm (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senani Ponnamperuma

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

The subject of this biography does not meet inclusion criteria. The only claims of notability include publishing two books (which appear to be self-published and non-notable) and a website which is claimed to have won some local/minor internet awards. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated by Edgeweyes (talk). David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website referred to in the nomination, panique.com.au, appears to have been repeatedly added to Wikipedia articles (LinkSearch results). Most, if not all, the links were added by the same editor who created this biography. I think there is a strong chance that there is self-promotional activity involved. As for the article, I recommend Delete as non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Deli nk (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have tried searching for references to support the subject's notability unfortunately I have to conclude that it fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Books, browser, Highbeam and Scholar all found some links but certainly not enough convincing. Pinging interested users DGG and Hamiltonstone. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gino and Mark Stocco

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

This is an article that is primarily about an ongoing manhunt. It contains no biographical information about the subjects of the article, except for a very brief mention of some past crimes that have not received significant coverage in the media. The article effectively fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator said, WP:BLP1E effectively applies here. APerson (talk!) 14:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. These alleged criminal acts may have some enduring notability in the future if and when convictions are secured. Until then, this is just a breaking news story. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per nomination and other rationale stated above. EricSerge (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Even though these men have been wanted by the police for years, it is only now (October 2015) that it has become so newsworthy. --Dmol (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this page should not be seen as a biography of the Stoccos as such, but rather here to discuss the circumstances of their evasion and the police search. WP:BLP1E does not prohibit an article on the event, which is somewhat notable. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't consider this a biography, the event is a breaking news item. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lasting effects of this manhunt per WP:EVENT are not established. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've been caught, so the manhunt is over. It was a 10 day news flash-in-the-pan and will be forgotten next week. --Dmol (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it will be difficult seeing this having any lasting impact beyond the news cycle. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that a body has been found near their hideout, this topic may have taken a more sinister turn. Best to keep for now and see how the matter is resolved. WWGB (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yep, now that they have murdered somebody and been charged with attempted murder of police after 8 years on the run NOT A 10 DAY STORY this page ain't going anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been directly linked with the murder yet, so it's inappropriate to argue that they've murdered someone. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've now been charged with murder. Hack (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they may be charged but it's a huge BLP issue having someone accused of murder awaiting trial having a WP article about them. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Hmm, Australia's most wanted criminals are found on a farm they worked on 21 days before, where the owner is found dead of a violent death, after he was reported missing 20 days prior. You seriously think he's innocent?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Please see WP:BLPCRIME. They're also not "Australia's most wanted criminals", they are just the most newsworthy at the moment. There are others on the list. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A remote property near Elong Elong was the final hideout for father-and-son fugitives, Gino and Mark Stocco who were arrested by the NSW Police on 28 October 2015 after eight years on the run.AWHS (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the quoted text justifies a keep vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Front page on almost every paper in Australia today, five page spread in the Sydney paper today, I think the circumstances that initially suggested an AfD have changed in the last week. The Sydney Morning Herald called it 'infamous' today and described the men as 'two of Australia's most wanted men'. Arguably the biggest crime story in years in Australia. Strong keep from me.AWHS (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to these two men failing to pay for petrol, virtually nothing was known of them. They only appeared in the news because they shot at police who were looking for them because of that. This is a BLP, but it doesn't really cover anything that didn't stem from the manhunt. It's a clear breach of BLP1E. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to Man Monis doing what he did, virtually nothing was known of him either. Things have changed now, and the duo are now notable. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man Monis' notability was established well before the seige.[44] I suggest you read WP:BLP1E. Any notability stems from a single event, that event being that they failed to pay for petrol. As a result of that event they were hunted by police and then fired weapons at police, which is what catapulted them into the news. Had they paid for the petrol, we probably still wouldn't know anything about them. Not every criminal gets an article. Take for example Ivan Milat, who has had significantly more courage than this pair, but doesn't have an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Man Monis had limited media coverage before the siege. The Stoccos also had limited media coverage as well (at least as early as 2007). The Stoccos became well known not after for failing to pay for petrol, but for shooting at police in Wagga on October 16 (at least a week before failing to pay for fuel at Gundagai). Likewise, Man Monis became famous at the time of the siege. Ivan Milat does not need an article as there is an article about the event. The Stoccos page is really about the police manhunt. Change the name if you wish, but the page should not be viewed strictly as a biography. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even the biggest crime story of the week. That would be Deaths of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. If this was in the United States, the suspects might qualify for inclusion if they were on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. Is there an equivalent in Australia and were these men on it? - Location (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gino (not Mark) was added "to the national most wanted list in mid-August" 2015 [45]. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote from that news article was Queensland Police only added Gino to the national most wanted list in mid-August. That was despite being on the run for 8 years. The sentence prior to that was the pair was not on the NSW most wanted list. The national most wanted list here is not like the FBI's 10 most wanted. These are people who were virtually unknown until they failed to pay for petrol. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing remarkable about this pair. Its not notable when some delinquents go on a crime spree and the police do their job. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on its current state. The article is plenty long enough to contain basic details like what the original crimes were, how they got out of jail to have been shooting at police, a few sentences on Mark's life, ages, how they evaded capture for so long etc. It is possible that a compelling article could be written one day, but this is not it, and the fact that many basic facts are missing from an article this long suggests that reliable references are not (yet) available so the article is WP:TOOSOON. It is only an article about one minor event that got a lot of social media attention for political reasons. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTNEWS. the spike in news coverage until their capture just proves this is a news event. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ They are murders. End of story. No more mention of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you can only vote once. Secondly, per WP:BLPCRIME A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. You can't call them murderers (or murders) until they've been convicted. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and especially WP:BLPCRIME. The only substantial coverage these people have received has been for a single event, their attempt to avoid arrest. If further and broader coverage develops an article may be warranted. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This was an eight year crime spree of fraud, arson, robbery, vandalism and assaults - apart from murders. Notable enough. Coverage in Sydney Morning Herald 31 October reported the Stoccos on 35 charges and predicted 'more to come'. The murder victim was also linked to the Calabrian mafia and a marijuana cultivation syndicate, which may prove to be another angle. Pallas Blade (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review Wikipedia's notability criteria: notability is generated by sustained coverage, and not a single burst of stories. This is especially the case for articles on living people. You are also making the mistake of claiming that these people are guilty of things which they have currently only been charged for. Nick-D (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the criminals that have pages here haven't been mentioned in the media for years. You want to use that stupid logic, let's delete 4.9 million other articles that haven't appeared in the media in the past 7 days. WWII? Gone. Ivan Milat? Gone. Moon landing? Gone. Thanks. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - A week after their capture and the story has disappeared from the news. It was always a media rush, and except for occasional mentions in future for court appearances, it has gone stale now. This was not an 8 years story as some have said, as for most of that time they lived out of sight. As I predicted, they will be forgotten. As for the number of charges, that's not unusual. Any short burst of criminal activity will quickly add dozens of charges to the person involved. --Dmol (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not entirely disappeared ... still some stuff yesterday. WWGB (talk) 03:53, 3 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. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Niazi (Founder)

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

BLP of non notable person recreated on a yearly basis cross wiki by persons with a COI. Sources does not indicate more than local notability.

The article name Daniel Niazi is salted, which explains the need for the current article name.

Articles regarding the subject has been deleted 12 times on nowiki and 9 times on simple. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous disussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Niazi. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I have nominated the article for speedy deletion per the above rationale, a look into earlier logs, and the article's still prevalent sourcing issues. GermanJoe (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlight Ministries

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

I simply found no better coverage to suggest better notability and improvement with the best being this and this and this article simply has not improved and changed since starting in May 2007. Pinging Doug Weller, The Interior, Flowanda, MrOllie, Stevenfruitsmaak and Orlady (although it seems these last two users are not considerably active). SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Google and Google Scholar searches found no significant coverage in independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources confirm (barely) that the subject of this article exists. That's about it. David.thompson.esq (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists. It's a high school. We've been keeping these (and not keeping schools for younger children) based on verifiability alone for a long, long time. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for (a lot) more information. Jacona (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a religious-based "correctional" facility for delinquent teens - all the psychobabble terminology in the article is just a PC way of describing delinquency without using the "naughty word". The fact that education also happens is of secondary significance. It is also a producer of radio programming and a publisher of printed and audio material. It's not a high school like "Anyburg High School" is a school and nothing else, so I'm not sure SCHOOLOUTCOMES is really applicable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as David.thompson.esq suggests, evey mention of Heartlight Ministries in reliable sources that I can find simply is that, a mention with no serious discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brightworks Interactive Marketing

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

Seemingly open and shut case of a non-notable company as I found no better coverage and this being the best I found. I would've pinged the one tagger but it seems he's not considerably active and this simply has not improved since starting in April 2011. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wonder if this could be PRODed or speedy deleted. Pretty clearly fails notability guidelines. mikeman67 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of five sources, two are dead links. The others are from association brochures or websites. Since the subject of the article is apparently a member of the associations, these sources are not independent. David.thompson.esq (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 3 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! 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margate Entertainment

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

Easily speedy and PROD material for a seemingly now non-existent company as their website is closed (and that wouldn't be surprising considering this hasn't changed much since starting in March 2008) and all I can find are the usual business listings and some press releases here. I'm also noting that if this should be deleted, a redirect to Karl Marx's Opiate for the People should replace this. Pinging Vegaswikian, Azumanga1, Cobaltbluetony and Tangerines. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated above. I note that the article was created in essentially its present form by a user whose name matches one of the co-owners of the company. David.thompson.esq (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and David.thompson.esq. No evidence of notability in the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Tangalla

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

Was originally proposed for a speedy delete but was contested by the article's creator. The article was bordering on self promotion however I have tried to remove all the promotional content. I still believe however that it fails the basic WP:GNG - in that it lacks any signficiant independent coverage that establishes the topics notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 3 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) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muniruddin Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, in the present state the article too fails the prerequisites of sourcing and OR. There used to be an opinion piece mentioning him on the DAWN newspaper, I cannot even find that now. A previous AFD had only 2 keep votes , I think this is high time we said goodbye to this mess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case as I found links with "Muniruddin Ahmed Pakistan" at Books, News and browser but seemingly for other people so unless this article can be improved, I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As SwisterTwister said, the hits on the search engines seem to be about a different person by this same name, not a writer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Khang Movement

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

Original research misrepresenting the sources. Sources talk of a petition regarding trade and human rights in relation to political prisoners. Viet Khang is mentioned as an example of a political prisoner in at least most of the sources. I skipped over #2 due to a warning about malicious software, beware of checking. None of the sources refer to a "Viet Khang Movement". None refer to "a global political, human rights, religious freedom and social equality advocacy movement." (bolding mine). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep: Withdrawn by nominator Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bicester Village railway station

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bicester Village railway station

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

Bicester Town railway station has been renamed to Bicester Village railway station however the Bicester Town article should have been moved to the new name rather than this article being created Commyguy (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Commyguy pebbens (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the information has been moved from the Bicester town article to this one, are you happy to remove the deletion notice on this page and delete the Bicester Town article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian International Services Group

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

American humanitarian organization. The article has been marked as an advert for 4 years, and is almost entirely referenced to the organization's website. In 2013 the organization ceased to exist in this form, and became "Sustainable Communities Worldwide" (which organization doesn't have an article, either). A Google search hasn't turned up any relevant (non-trivial) third-party coverage. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both this existing the same since January 2008 and there being no obvious improvement to this currently unacceptable article is enough for a WP:TNT and a chance of making a better article whenever that may be. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with User:SwisterTwister. Seems like an obvious WP:TNT. There were a few reports in shadowy low reliability sources saying that HISG is a spy front, but I can't find any credible sources reporting on it. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - In its current form, the article is probably not worth keeping but The Intercept just published a lengthy story here with details about tax records and actions undertaken by the group, and I expect (as with Shakil Afridi), there will be further reporting on this. I would like to revisit in two weeks and if the article hasn't seen some improvements, it should get the axe.-Ich (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the The Intercept qualifies as RS. We could go to the RS noticeboard to test that. Seems like conspiracy theory reporting. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the site has a strong political bent and is clearly focused on muckraking, I would still consider it acceptable in this case, provided the allegations are attributed. The author, Matthew Cole, worked for ABC News and NBC in the past, and the site has produced good coverage of other national security issues, particularly Snowden docs and drones. I would be interested in seeing the RS Noticeboard.-Ich (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the allegations are attributed. It just says it's getting its information from "senior figures at the pentagon". I'm getting information from senior figures at the pentagon. They're telling me that Intercept is not reliable. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Significant sources Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 00:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]

Delete - not enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. (and kudos to NickCT for giving me a chuckle in the morning). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 3 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. Please let me know if you want this restored in your user space Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devsena Mishra

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

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for biographical subjects. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, Please guide me as I have read the notability guidelines and I have provided good number of secondary sources, I have added one more reference of "unitediwithisrael.org", Devsena Mishra belongs to Delhi's politically and socially responsible family. She is involved in the promotion of advanced technologies, government programmes and pro-Israel activities....I have added references of the sources which I found, if you'll guide me and give me some time then I'll try to further improve it. I have improved the references as per wikipedia guidelines. would like to share with you that I'm new to Wikipedia Community, looking forward for your guidance in future.Best Regards.vishalgauravjh1Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see nothing better. Pinging tagger Comatmebro. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think expanding on some of the information in that one paragraph to give the entire page a little bit more context would definitely help. You've added some additional sources which is great. Maybe organize the sources by the information included in them, and follow the style guidelines of WP:BLP a little more closely (i.e. early life, work as an IT leader, independent work, etc). I have no issues rescinding my deletion proposal. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Comatmebro,

Thanks for your guidance, I have made changes in my article Devsena Mishra.

Best Regards, vishalgauravjh1Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy - Have the editor submit it through the AfC process. Right now, I'm not even seeing a good assertion of notability. She's related to famous folks, but nothing in the article to show notability. The article might go nowhere in AfC, but at least the editor will be given direction. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Mr. Onel5969, this is my first article, I'll try to further improve it. Best Regards, vishalgauravjh1Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 14:53, 3 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) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atomix (operating system)

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

Was a minor Linux distro for a short while years ago. There was a small number of reviews written about this, but not enough coverage to make it notable, I think. --ilmaisin (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (linux distro) of unclear notability. The only substantial ref I could find was the Linux.com: Review, which is linked or repeated on several other linux sites. There are some other incidental mentions and download sites, nothing substantial enough to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andranik Madadian. Don't ususally close on one !vote but after being up 3 weeks I can't see the discussion getting any better so wrapping it up now (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy & Kouros

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

Questionably notable group because there are many listed sources and my searches (including Newspapers Archive) simply found nothing thus with no obvious hope for improvement, I'm questioning keeping this. It is currently mentioned at Andranik Madadian's article but I'm not sure if this should be moved there or simply deleted and considering it was California-based, coverage would imaginably exclusively English. Pinging past user Werldwayd and SunCreator. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andranik Madadian. Insufficient coverage for a separate article. Can be coveered quite adequately at Andranik Madadian. By the way, I did not find any archival newspaper coverage in Google, nor at newspapers.com. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Scott

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

fails GNG as musician, appeared only on American Idol and did not advance to top group —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's very likely simply no better improvement yet and better improvement for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable contestant, apparently also appeared on the voice according to American Idol (season 14) but didn't place high there either Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. (note to Rainbow unicorn - I edited your comment only to remove a "return" stroke which was causing some weird formatting issue. Hope you don't mind). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 3 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 keep. "Unreferenced" is not a valid criterion for deletion. Also, references do not necessarily have to be inline citations. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 09:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Kravchuk

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Unreferenced is not a valid criteria for deletion. Additionally there are some references for the article. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moguai

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

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. This is unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of airline and airport lounges

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

And the subject of this list is notable because...? It's verifiable, but none of these lounges are notable, and the whole subject is better suited to a travel guide, which Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useful at Wikivoyage, but here it is cruft. sst ✈ 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. (Well, the Admirals Club probably is but one lounge doth not a list make) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN, being covered by sources such as The Five Best; The world's best; The Complete Travel Detective. Wikivoyage is a different project and is a joke IMO as they bizarrely don't have articles about airports, let alone lounges. The key concept of an encyclopedia is that it covers everything and the only issue for a topic like this is the appropriate level at which to cover it. The worst case would be merger of selected examples into the main article airport lounge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just below I made a suggestion on how the information could be covered and preserved.Borock (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the claim above, I don't think the topic does pass WP:LISTN. Sure, airport lounges are a notable topic - especially if you design or study or rank them - but cites picking out a handful of good ones only demonstrate the notability of the good ones, not of an exhaustive and unranked listing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My understanding of the purpose of lists on WP is that they are mainly to direct readers to articles. None of these lounges seem to have articles, or to be likely to. The fact that they exist could be, IMO, best covered in the articles on the individual airports. Nobody is going to fly to an airport because of the lounge, but people interested in an airport might want to know about its lounges. Despite WP:How to, some topics are inherently mainly how-to. Airports, since their articles are most interesting to potential users. Borock (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is listcruft that belongs in a travel directory, not an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally split this article from the Airport lounge article - which it utterly dominated. Thinking in hindsight, the overly comprehensive nature and frankly rather poor presentation and organization played a part the decision to do that. There is pertinent information there, it's just not presented in a way that is terribly useful to a reader. The best course of action would be the distribute the information around the relevant airport and airline articles. Therefore, it would be best if the article could be kept around in projectspace while that can be done. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep info in some form as per AnotherNewAccount's request. Borock's point is extremely cogent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. rayukk | talk 17:22, 3 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. Apart from any notability issues, the refs are all links to sales sites, the author is socking here, and there is an obvious undisclosed COI, a breach of our terms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Coskun

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

This subject came up with the "quantum sound engine", an Android app and a non-notable theory. I am only able to find trivial or non-independent coverage - nothing that meets WP:GNG or other relevant notability guidelines. A BLP-PROD was removed after the editor added refs to the Google Play Store and Amazon Kindle Books. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, because links provided to the references made in the article are from reliable sources such as Amazon Kindle books, Google Play Android App Store and YouTube music videos. Customers who bought Billy Coskun's apps and books and heard his compositions are searching on Wikipedia to find more about him. I'm planning to expand this article in the future by elaborating the book Billy Coskun has written. Antonyroman 27 October 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyroman (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in self-published apps and books aren't sufficient to establish notability. There's also some sort of fringe thing going on here... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a big logical mistake being made here. To discuss if the article about Billy Coskun should be deleted or not is meaningless, because he is the first person in history to discover "The Elastic Clock Synchronization in the Brain" and he already published a book about his discovery. If you Google the subject, only Billy Coskun's name comes up. Which means no one else discovered it before. The links to his book, his apps and his music are provided because it was asked by the Wikipedia editors. The references provided don't add to or take away from the fact that Billy Coskun used his knowledge and experience as a musician/composer and confidently wrote about the subject. The title/sub-title of his book "Quantum Entangled Mind States: The phenomenon of elastic clock synchronization in the brain" is on Amazon best sellers list regularly. Today I checked and it's at #77 in Physics of Time [46] and his app QONOS Quantum Audio Engine is at #34 in the best sellers list [47] This means Billy Coskun is popular among readers and app buyers. But as I mentioned earlier, we are not qualified to discuss a discovery. Nobody is! Can you discuss e=mc2? No! Einstein discovered it and it was proven. Billy Coskun's discovery is self-proven because, inter aural pitch difference (Diplacusis) is a well established scientific fact. Being a music composer, Billy Coskun is the first person in history to discover that inter aural pitch difference occurs because of tempo (frequency) changes caused by the different clock-rates created in the ears, and they are synchronized, otherwise time dilation would occur in the brain! Deleting the article at this point would be doing an injustice to scientific progress. Because, scholars who will read the articles about Billy Coskun and Diplacusis will now know how to explain this phenomena and it will definitely lead to new discovery and advances on the subject and other related subjects such as physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyroman (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that WP would not be qualified to publish original research, because that isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia - and that's the very problem with this WP entry. We do discuss mass-energy equivalence and other complex scientific concepts, but we can do that because we base WP articles off of independent, reliable sources. There are no such sources for this article. Once a couple of reliable academic journals or even major magazines (like say Scientific American) begin to write about this individual or his theory in depth, he'll be in a better place to meet our notability guidelines. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Antonyroman has a valid point. A discovery is a discovery. A book has been published on the subject and read by many people. Why do we need Scientific American? For people who don't live in the USA, an American Publication is useless. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people by the people. Am I wrong? AlexBorghei

Yes, you are. You may want to read our notability guidelines, especially as they regard to original research, self-promotion and people, generally. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal or a place to promote one's books and personal thoughts. We summarize ideas that have already reached some sort of notability, the site's not here to create that notability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked the links provided by Antonyroman, the book and the apps are on the best seller list alright. Amazon is the biggest online retailer. That is notability right there considering the fact that there are millions of authors and app developers who would thrive to be on the best sellers list in their product cathegory. As I see it, Billy Coskun is a succesfull creative professional his chosen fields. I think it would be an injustice if this article is deleted without a valid ground. 10/30/2015 SercanParmak
Despite appearances, AfD isn't actually a vote, and creating accounts for the purpose of adding +Keeps doesn't actually help your case and is against policy. Please, read over those links I posted in my last comment. Also, you can sign posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your post. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I'm sensing prejudice and even jealousy here. There are probably thousands of articles on WP which shouldn't be here. Most notorious examples are : Schrödinger's cat thought experiment (it's animal cruelty, man!) and D-Wave quantum computer. You know it costs 10 million USD to actually buy the D-Wave, so nobody can see what it does. It was never confirmed that it's a quantum computer. On the other hand, people are buying Billy Coskun's quantum product and making it a best seller. I didn't come across a negative comment anywhere, which means that customers are happy. You can check and see that both the book and the quantum apps are still on the best sellers list today (Amazon updates them daily). So, ask yourself these questions: What does WP gain from deleting this article? Are we ignoring the valid and reputable links provided to support the information written in the article? You know if you approach these questions without prejudice, you will have to keep the article.
Delete I can't find evidence of a hard copy, but the digital book is self-published through Amazon. He also appears to create games that are sold through app stores, but I didn't find any reviews of them. (Apps are, in a sense, self-published.) LaMona (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All apps are published through app stores. It's the nature of the business. You enter an exclusive partnership deal with the app stores, they take 30% from your app sales as their commission. The app stores also have extensive testing procedure before approving the app in question for sale. They don't approve any app. The app has to deliver exactly what's written in the app description. So, for example you (if you have the knowledge) can't just create an app an self-publish it in an app store. If you sell on your personal website then it's self-published. But if you sell on Google Play Store, Samsung Galaxy Appstore or Amazon Appstore, it's selling your product in an online store and it's not self-publishing. By the way Billy Coskun's apps are not games, they are quantum audio engine apps. Therefore, they are the world's first mass-market quantum products as clearly mentioned in the article and the quantum apps were tested, approved and certified by the expert personnel at the app testing departments of giant electronics and software companies such as Samsung, Google (they wrote the Android OS and hold the license) and Amazon App Developers. This is in fact proof that Billy Coskun's Android apps are the world's first mass-market quantum products, as certified by the experts. If you don't know what you are talking about, you shouldn't post comments.
Delete - clearly does not meet our notability criteria, as per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your searches don't qualify. The links are valid. On which planet do you live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyroman (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strange

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

One of the two entries in this dab page is named "Pete" (no indication whether this is short for Peter or not). The second is a character in an obscure film. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems resolvable without a full AfD proceeding; follow WP:DAB, and/or redirect to whichever you think is the primary target, adding hatnotes where necessary. Also, I was notified as the creator of this page, but all I did was redirect it to an article I wrote; the work of turning it into a dab was done after me. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (a) "Pete" is such a standard abbreviation for "Peter" that a reader looking for "Pete Strange" might well search on "Peter Strange", "knowing" that encyclopedias use formal full names; (b) another entry added to dab page, character in an eponymous film. PamD 08:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 valid entries. All have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION; it isn't relevant whether they are obscure, they meet the guidelines. Dabs are there to help readers find info in the encyclopaedia about a person etc. We have info on them, thus we have a dab. All would be valid redirects if they were on the only one. I'm not convinced alternatives to deletion were looked for here, such as additional valid entries. Pete is unlikely not to be short for Peter, but I've changed the intro to say 'Peter or Pete'. I am the creator but was not informed; it's often the case with dabs that the erson who created the page is not the creator of the article or dab. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked for other Peter Stranges who meet MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABMENTION or have articles and added 2 more entries. There are others, but I haven't added all of them. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition

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

This is not even a real thing, more an informal thing. "According to Russia, which is bombing rebel targets in Syria in support of its ally President Bashar al-Assad, has already forged close cooperation with the governments of Iraq, Syria and Iran, which are all part of a loose Shi'ite alliance pursuing different aims from those of the United States and its allies." http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-jordan-idUSKCN0SH1ER20151023 Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: So what? Are you questioning the notability?Mhhossein (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be frank, the nomination is flawed and the case has to be handled with more delicacy. Formation of the coalition is supported by different sources. "It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government," according to The New York Times [48]. One may point to the well announced agreement of Iraq, a part of the coalition, "to share intelligence with Russia, Iran and Syria," as the CNN says.[49] Moreover, formation of this coalition has been verified by Assad, Syria's president.[50] I found some other sources such as this and this. Also, these two sources show Iran's role in this coalition and how General Soleimani's meeting affected it. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the article by Aljazeera entitled "Iraq, Russia, Iran and Syria coordinate against ISIL."[51] to my comments. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mhhossein's rationale and Merge to Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan Coalition page which now includes Jordan in the naming structure as they have established a joint military command centre in Amman. Guru Noel (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am questioning the notability. Russia and the US are even working together [52] Guru Noel to deconflict and Jorden has hardly switched sides to become allies with Iran - that would put them at odds with their GCC partners. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and is adequately sourced to RS. Legacypac's observation that it is "not a real thing," is correct insofar as it is not a treaty-built formal alliance like NATO or SEATO, but rather an ad hoc military arrangement. However, we have numerous precedents of ad hoc military arrangements having WP articles, such as Eight-Nation Alliance, etc. However, in deference to his point, we should start the word "coalition" with a lower-case letter instead of capital letter. LavaBaron (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps with an alternative title for the reasons LavaBaron stated (military partnership?). It has enough RS as far as I am concerned.Hollth (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not delete, then merge with Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War which already covers the cooperation with Iran and Assad in depth. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: I suggest you to withdraw this AFD and start the merger proposal if you think it should be merged. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J.Son Dinant

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

J.Son Dinant, best known for his appearances on Fear and Inked. So well known for those that imdb doesn't even mention him. Also known for his online series Naked Boy News. So not really known then?
This bloated promo piece is bombarded with sources but for the most part they are not good sources. gossip sites, things he's written, passing mentions, unreliable sources, sources he contribute to. None are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about him.
Article also does a lot of name-dropping, trying to establish notability through associations but notability is not inherited.
This advert should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 3 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Ping Pui

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

Hampered as I am by my poor understanding of naming conventions in Hong Kong and by inability to read Chinese, I can't see how this person is notable enough to meet either WP:ARTIST or the WP:GNG. The potted bio on the Hong Kong University pages says he has won awards, but does not say what they were. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth coverage in foreign media of this artist and his artwork: CNN Travel, Singapore Lianhe Zaobao; and local media: Headline Daily, The Sun, HK, Eastweek. ~~I'll try to further expand~~ I have expanded the article to make clear his notability. Der yck C. 21:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was created as part of the Smithsonian Asia-Pacific Art editathon. Der yck C. 21:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Der yck C. 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Der yck C. 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck. The deletion nominator should search for Chinese sources first, which should easily prove notability. sst ✈ 05:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Marble Games

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Apart from its brief part in the Eurogamer article, it had no meaningful content in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—not enough to write an article on the subject. Perhaps it's worth a redirect to one of its games? If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much hope for better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage, if I had to choose a redirect, Democracy, since it seems to be the most well-known, but I don't think it's worth much having Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wait for a week to take decision
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikienglish123 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 3 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) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lounge Piranha

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

Questionably notable band because the listed sourcing is not adequate and the best my searches found were this, this, this and this which seems acceptable but I nominated it better attention. Their website is now closed and there's no recent evidence to suggest continued activity with their now only page at Facebook not being updated since twice in 2013, thrice in 2012 and continuously longer into 2011. Pinging tagger Hekerui and past users TheDJ and Nancy. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, Yash!, Human3015 would you comment? I'm hoping for a clear consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Userfy - Their debut album was ranked #4 in the list of best albums of 2008 in India. I am uncertain if that's enough. According to this, they "called it quits" in 2011. The source also states that they were one of the pioneers of post-rock in the city and an inspiration for other city based post-rock bands. Other than these facts, I am unable to establish anything and I doubt if this is enough. It seems that there are a lot many sources on Kamal Singh, which we can add to the article. However, as it stands right now, it just doesn't look notable enough. Ya sh! 19:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think having #4 best album in Rolling Stone India is good enough, not sure how they define "best" anyways. Should probably also delete the article on their album as well Going Nowhere (album). Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 3 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) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Witchwater

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

I declined speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3 on this one, but I'm not sure this is describing a real term for reflections on asphalt roads. I had never heard of this before and I couldn't find anything through Google either. –Grondemar 00:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mirage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: I agree that if there is anything here it could and should be merged to mirage, but this is unsourced and badly written, so it could just be deleted. I can't find my copy of Minnaert to look for names of this particular mirage phenomenon, but I can't immediately find any reference to "witchwater". Unless someone can cite a reference to this term, I don't think it should redirect -- this may be a local or coined name, of no general notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found it being used in the comment section of a mirage video [53]: "I see this daily here in Florida. We call it Witch Water.", but it doesn't seem worth mentioning elsewhere, not a particularly notable piece of state/regional lingo Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding any in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 3 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) 14:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Charumbira

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

Questionably independently notable as there's not much else and the best links I found were this, this and this and this has basically stayed the same since starting in November 2005. Pinging past user J04n. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Noriega

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

Seemingly non-notable rapper and being from this area, I can confirm he is not majorly known here and the sourcing seems to show this as my searches also found nothing better. Although this would've suggested it was the subject, the author "Slapdatazz" (not joking) seems to have been a fan and has not edited since starting this in October 2008 and there has simply been no improvement since then. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero hits on all of the search engines. Totally fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails related guidelines Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:48, 2 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. Ged UK 15:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Griparic

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

Questionably notable and may actually only be best known for Slash's Snakepit as mentioned because my searches only found a few links at News and browser with "Johnny Griparic bassist". Pinging users WikiDan61 and Tedder whether this should be deleted and restored to redirect or simply one of them. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I doubt he's even notable for Ain't Life Grand as he is barely mentioned in passing on the album's website. Since none of the other information in the article is at all verifiable from reliable sources, if the article is kept at all, it is only viable as a redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No indication of notability- nor did my searching turn up much else. Session musicians can be notable, but clearly not in this case. tedder (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Would you please comment? Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedy Noriega, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muqtada Mansoor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Charumbira. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Didn't find much, but this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, since he has recently joined a band, and not as a session player, Trout, but that band does not appear to be notable either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq-Jordan Coalition

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

It's WP:too soon to have such a subject. Just an oral agreement is announced by the Reuters and no further action is done by Jordan. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is not even a thing and should be speedy deleted. The article creator seems to have made this and a similar named article when his previous article was deleted. His POV is pretty obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah_offensive Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems to be an attempt by Guru Noel to recreate an article (under a different name) that had just been deleted. EkoGraf (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per others. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mhhossein's rationale on the deletion discussion for the Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition page [54] but move to include Jordan in the naming structure as they have established a joint military command centre with the russians in Amman. Guru Noel (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete Guru Noel? cause you can't keep and merge something, and there is almost no content to merge. I also did a news search and found Zero results for this article title, indicating that if this thing exists, the name is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content or RS to justify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, plus Jordan isn't a part of the Russian coalition, the article is WP:Too soon and this coalition including Jordan just doesn't exist. - SantiLak (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muqtada Mansoor

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

Questionably notable? as the best my searches found were this (not sure if this is him as it mentions "Khan" as a last name), this and this. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no reasonable prospect of notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few brief mentions on News, Books and Highbeam. Not enough to meet WP:BASIC, and definitely not enough to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico Morais

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Arruda81 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see diff). Arradua81's rationale: "I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional material is added demonstrating that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Note: This is "my" deletion - the nomination by proxy on behalf of Arruda81. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is not about the portuguese surfer, it's about the same named coach that has worked in france, portugal, england and italy.

I have added some nwe information and proof of it.

It's silly that it is going to close, because I add eniugh information. Video, websites, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlrobinsonuk (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have uploaded interview Frederico, French press. There is no need to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlrobinsonuk (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 October 2015

Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Has this person coached in tier one leagues, or at the highest level of international football? Has he coached in one of These leagues? I did not see evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is just working with youth categories of minor clubs. If it is decided to keep the article, it should be renamed to Frederico Morais (footballer coach) as the surfer is at least most notable and deserves an article.Caiaffa (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY. I'm sorry to disagree User:Carlrobinsonuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but an interview with a newspaper is not enough to make someone notable. With or without the interview, the article still looks like a professional resumé. Monaco U17 isn't professional football, and even if it was he's not even listed on AS Monaco official website as part of the technical staff of the U17 team, so I can only assume he's an assistant coach. And thank you User:davidwr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Arruda81 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by minor clubs, AC Milan, AS Monaco, Boavista FC are minor clubs? They are top league, champions league clubs. He is not on the website because that was last season. This season he is in Leyton Orient FC, as the reference number 1 shows. You can check the reference number 4, which has his experience. I agree it should be renamed Frederico Morais (Football Coach), but deleting it is just a crime, to a 27 year old coach, that has been working in so many different clubs and has good reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessyperkins2 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not AC Milan, Monaco or Boavista who are minor clubs, it's himself who isn't notable by any stretch of the imagination. Working at a known organization doesn't make somebody noteworthy. You must also realize that the fact that his article was written by someone with the name "morales" and the fact that the two persons defending the article not being deleted seem to be accounts created solely for that purpose is highly suspicious. (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Arruda81 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Elizabeth Hallam

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

utterly trivial accomplishments; speedy declined, on the basis that "the claims to win 2 contests ins a claim of significance" -- I think otherwise, if the contents are as insignificant as this. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - Considering that your account is a suspected Sock Puppet [55] your comments have no honest merit. See [56] - London2019

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this and this. Pinging Davey2010 and Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you also Google all the variations of her name? Did you also Google her Married Hindu Name? Did you also Google her name with her Husband's Name? Did you read any of the newspaper articles and watch any of the video interviews on her? - London2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2019 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As lovely as she looks we can't keep based on looks!, I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Define Evidence? Multiple references have been included. This page is a work in progress. It is not her complete biography or a complete list of all her accomplishments. I am conducting extensive research to verify all information before it is published. There are interview claims (and pictures) that Hallam was on the TV shows "Top Gear" and "Peaky Blinders" which I have not been able to verify yet. Which is why they are not listed. -London2019

Do Not Delete - Multiple sources, references and links have been added and her biography is being updated regularly. My understanding is that Wikipedia is an evolving source note an actual completed work. If it was a completed work we would not need these over zealous moderators. You do not get to decide what part of a person's biography is significant. It all adds to the story. This person travels the entire world raising awareness and cash for the Charities that she is an Ambassador for. She is just not someone Beauty Queen that these ignorant people have typed cast her to be. I've seen plenty of pages, on Wikipedia, for people that have done nothing. This is an online source of information, period. This is not an application for a Visa. Grow up! -London2019

Comment - First, I would suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before you again comment in this forum. Additionally, do you really think calling people names will help your cause? Secondly and most importantly, the article fails to establish notability for the individual. Traveling to raise money may or may not be significant in her and other people's lives; however, information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. I highly suggest you read notability and WP:BIO. There just does not seem to be adequate independent support for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only person suggesting this page be deleted is you and all your multiple fake accounts. I have provided multiple references, for all the information listed, on Hallam's page. Try reading the actual references instead of going out of your way to delete this page that meets the qualifications for inclusion. -London2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2019 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I strongly suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL. If you feel DGG (an admin with over 180,000 edits), SwisterTwister (with over 64,000 edits), Davey (with over 46,000 edits) and me (with over 34,000 edits) are the same person feel free to open an investigation per the instructions in WP:SPI. Don't be surprised if investigation is closed rather quickly. Some times sockpuppets do show up in article, as evidenced in the case of DangerDogWest, but their editing an article is no reason to suggest everyone else is a sock.

BTW - Please sign your name by including 4 tildes at the end of your message. (~~~~) reddogsix (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person not notable. Fails WP:ENT. Possible COI as well. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches do not show her meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 3 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 keep. Note that a delete !vote has been struck per being cast by a confirmed sock. As such, this discussion has no outstanding delete !votes, because the nominator has withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renée French

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either broken links to nominations for awards the subject did not win or to her own webpages. The subject is the author of several children's books but none have articles (two were deleted) and none appears notable. Subject's sole claim to notability appears to be her marriage to Rob Pike. Unfortunately, notability is not WP:INHERITED. Googling turned up nothing useful for either her own name or her pen name. Msnicki (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I am satisfied by the sources offered by NinjaRobotPirate. Msnicki (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply for the listed awards because, yes, although I found nothing else better that is enough to keep this and hopefully it will be improved later. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't win most of those awards, she was only nominated. She won only one of them, a ComiCon award. That's not exactly a Pulitzer or a Nobel. I don't think there's anything in the guidelines to indicate that's sufficient to establish notability. This article has been around since 2007. How long do you think we should wait for it to be improved? Msnicki (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "subject is the author of several children's books" is not quite right. Most of her work is for adults. Here, for example, is a 2001 article in TIME titled "The Most Disturbing Artist You've Never Heard Of". In the comics world she is notable. Unique actually. There is plenty of reliable independent secondary source coverage of her work - book reviews, interviews, gallery exhibitions etc that is not difficult to find with google. The Wikipedia article does nor reflect RS coverage. "How long do you think we should wait for it to be improved?"...as long as it takes because the RS coverage exists and there's no deadline. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's enough to merely claim there are plenty of sources. I think you need to find them. I could not. If you can, I will retract my nomination. But first, you need to find two good sources. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a few more: [57] and [58] from The New York Times; [59] from The A.V. Club; and many more from The Comics Journal, such as [60] and [61]. The article was lacking sources, but you can find many if you look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will accept these sources. They tend to discuss her work, not the author herself, but I agree they are sufficient. I am withdrawing my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simmie Free

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

This moonshine maker gets a few pages in a book and a passing mention in a USA Today article, which doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This coverage, which is what the article is mostly based on is very in-depth, as is this coverage. Those two alone might be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He gets more than a passing mention (although definitely not in-depth coverage) here, as well as some nice coverage here. He also gets several other pretty good mentions on other links you can find on Books, all on the first 2 pages. There are also a couple of nice mentions in two other newspapers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as this seems acceptable and likely to find more with archived sources, certainly likely not a priority for deletion at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - marginal notability. poorly written article. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. See [62], [63]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Tails Shinju

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

I have no clue what to make of this article-but from the looks of it-it seems to be non notable. Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Here is a source for it. [64]. I'ts an anime series of some sort. The text appears to have been copied from several places. Does not look like an outright copyvio, but close. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked as a Sock puppet [65]

Delete Non-notable and no references in article at all. Tons of prose with no back-up. Zpeopleheart (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in favor of making/keeping character articles only if I know that they would be okay for stand alone articles. This one I do not see making it as the Ten-Tails has not received anywhere near the reception that Naruto Uzumaki has. If someone wants to, they can redirect this to Naruto#Plot if not then as I said delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

দারুল উলুম চিতলমারী মাদ্রাসা

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

This "article" does not have much context and has no references. [[Use.(UTC)

~~delete - Belongs in wiki for that language. non-english, no identifiable sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not English, no sources.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd normally say that this deserves a transwiki to bnwiki, but looking at the article, it's just an infobox with no sources. APerson (talk!) 14:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not in English. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're called "The English Encyclopedia" for a reason ...., Seeing as the only thing in the article is an infobox it's not even worth translating it!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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