Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 August 20 August >

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akher Zapheer[edit]

Akher Zapheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no reliable third-party sources. The tone is unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing convincingly good here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROMO advert of a band that "was once featured on Egyptian TV", fails WP:NBAND, no significant coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any of you could care to check the references. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) User:Makeandtoss is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
      • Refs 1, 5 and 11 are a blog posts
      • Ref 2 is a students' magazine
      • Refs 3, 8, 9 and 12 are youtube videos
      • Ref 4 is a music (blog) magazine
      • Ref 6 is a student's essay, posted at an essay host
      • Ref 7 is a record review at a music/art blog
      • Ref 10 is a directory entry at a music site
None of these sources can be used to establish notability, please check out what reliable sources are, and what the criteria for notability in general and notability for musicians are. Kraxler (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They meet 7 and (10 or 12) criteria for notable musicians/group. Not to mention that almost all reliable references on this topic are in Arabic, can I include them?--Makeandtoss (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Morabba3[edit]

El Morabba3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The provided sources are not reliable or not independent, the tone is unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BioCell Collagen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BioCell Collagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as WP:CSD#G4 but not substantially similar. Article created by WP:SPA, likely spam (promotional in overall tone). Guy (Help!) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any sources that have been published since the previous AFD that would be useful for demonstrating notability. Still fails WP:PRODUCT. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the sources in the article appear to be WP:RS. Also, none have been published since the previous AFD. shoy (reactions) 14:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably should be speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G4 WP:CSD#G11. Nothing in this piece shows that it passes WP:GNG with WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello, I created this article and I’m not sure I understand why it has been nominated for deletion. I have used both medical references and secondary sources. Here are some others that I found that also mention the topic.

[1] The Murder of the Middle Class The Canadian Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine Pg. 374 Serious Strength Training-3rd Edition Pg. 59 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.59.130 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Retina-X Studios. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneSheriff[edit]

PhoneSheriff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability seems to hinge on a couple of product awards. I'd argue that these are from minor publications, or are just a "runner up" status, neither of which confers requisite notability under relevant guidelines. An acceptable option is to merge to Retina-X Studios per WP:PRODUCT. Brianhe (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insuffficient awards, as stated.No other indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or why not simply redirect to the parent company, DGG? I understand this is vulnerable to being restarted but results such as these this, this, this and this should be able to support a redirect at least. Preceding unsigned !vote added by User:SwisterTwister
  • Redirect to Retina-X Studios - software article of unclear notability. Sources are incidental mentions in lists/overviews of similar software and blogs. Given the lack of significant RS coverage, a redirect to developer is reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. I find a rough consensus to merge, but it appears that the target already has a section about her, so I'll redirect instead. Any additional useful content may be merged from the history. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koto Okubo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Koto Okubo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was listed before for deletion in September 2012 with a consensus to merge. It was ignored repeatedly [9][10][11] then protected and restarted, restarted, restarted, restarted and restarted. The issue at the prior discussion was not solely that she wasn't even the world's oldest woman (she was then the oldest woman in Asia, it was that there was nothing about her other than her name and birth date. Now that she has been determined to have been the world's oldest woman, that's still a WP:BLP1E issue and the contents should again be merged to the Japanese supercentarian article and hopefully not just deleted outright. I don't think there's a consensus that having being the oldest women ever at any given time is sufficient notability for an article so I want to see where we should go with Template:Oldest people. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She was the world's oldest woman for a month, and this is part of the history of longevity. Georgia guy (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no-brainer, almost all of the top 40 names in List of the verified oldest people have articles and I doubt many of them are notable for anything other than their longevity. @Ricky81682: please consider withdrawing this AFD so it can be speedy-closed as keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prior discussion was merely that she was the oldest living woman in all of Asia and that wasn't sufficient. The fact that people stubbornly ignored it doesn't mean it isn't a fair discussion. Also, it's entirely possible for all forty of those articles to be merged together (I consider this akin to the former articles we had on every fiction character which became merged into individual characters of show pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and ban OP from further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.58.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block evading IP sock of 166.176.57.66. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Sources tell us almost nothing of interest that isn't already available there. Remove the unsourced statements and you're pretty much just left with a name, age and country and a statement that she was the oldest woman for a month. What little bio information that can be salvaged can go in the people section unless more information comes up. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

:: Editor is not a WOP and only exists to disrupt WOP work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.18 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Block evading IP sock of 166.176.57.66. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, only Italians can get involved? EEng (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Citations are obituaries and membership of a list. Might justify an article with appropriate citations, but there are, so for, none. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to the closing admin Topics related to super-centenarians have been contentious in the past. Longevity-related articles were subject to ARBCOM standard discretionary sanctions until 2014. It is not unlikely that editors who have strong feelings on this issue have or will participate in this discussion. This may be one of those situations where policy and precedent should clearly trump the "!vote count," particularly if it is close or participation is low. Getting a second admin's advice may be helpful if the result isn't clear. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians and redirect there. To quote the previous AfD, The result was merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians. A good decision then, a good decision now. The article doesn't even say anything about this woman's longevity, other than its span. And it has no other hint of notability. (To those who complain that articles are awarded indiscriminately to other ancients, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.) After this stub was previously turned into a redirect, there were vigorous efforts to ignore this and re-create the article, wasting others' time. This second time, protect the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD closed before she became the world's oldest person. The huge amount of press coverage she received in early 2013 (and late 2012?) when she became the world's oldest person and when she died makes the results of that AFD obsolete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided and closed prior to that fact and then ignored. It's not like anyone waited until she became the oldest woman to re-start, they just ignored the discussion and now create a new justification to again keep this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the previous AFD hadn't been ignored - if the article had been merged in September 2012 then un-merged (i.e revert to the pre-redirect version) and possibly expanded the article when she became the world's oldest person, we would be in the same place today as we actually are: Discussing whether this person is notable given the publicity she enjoyed before and after the AFD of September 2013. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in support of notability: Her death was widely reported in multiple languages (I found English and Spanish right off the bat) and her death and others has been the subject of satire [12]. If that doesn't meet the qualifications of WP:GNG then I'm interpreting WP:GNG incorrectly. To those raising the issue of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:Other stuff exists, the near-uniformity of other top-40-longest-lived people having their own long-standing articles strongly argues in favor of a general discussion on whether "having your death widely-reported due merely to old age" or "being in newspapers around the world merely due to old age" satisfies WP:GNG or whether those individuals fall under WP:ONEEVENT, and it strongly argues against using the "one event" and "other stuff exists" as reasons to delete articles one at a time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another round of the typical "we need another round of discussion after discussion after discussion in different places while we ignore what's actually discussed so we can badger everyone else to death and rally the troops in support of it." An article about the oldest woman in Japan at that time (in Asia in fact) was discussed, supposed to be deleted and then edit warred to stay on. No one bothered to actually convince a soul in support; they just ignored everyone and edit warred until everyone else gave up. Now that it's the oldest women and some merge votes come in, now it's the time we need to have new, separate discussions so that we can again argue about someone who lives to XX number of years needs separate biographies. The AFD discussions are discussions about their notability. Otherwise, you're free to propose an adjustment to point 2 of WP:ANYBIO or a million other angles to make 'staying alive for a very long time' worth a separate article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between "oldest woman in Japan" and "oldest person on the planet" (and a not-as-big difference between "oldest in Asia" vs. "oldest on the planet") in terms of how much press they will get (i.e. how likely they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria). Like a high school with a football team (and probably even more so than a high school), a person who is recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest person is almost certainly going to have significant and widespread press coverage in reliable sources. In short, it is unwise to automatically assume people will have the same "keep/merge/delete" recommendation for someone who has never been the oldest person in the world as they would for someone who has. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Update I mis-spoke when I implied she was the "oldest person on the planet" - she was the oldest woman on the planet, which is not the same. However, given the large media coverage of her since 2012 and especially during her tenure as the oldest woman on the planet, I see no question that this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For comparison, this is the content at the list page (and even that, the nursing home and son comment isn't actually sourced) but that's more than was removed in January 2013. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this closes as "merge" I strongly recommend that the closing admin replace the content with {{Afd-merge to}} followed by a soft-redirect and a link to the most recent prior edit, which can later be changed to a regular "redirect" when the merge is complete. This will make sure that the "failure to implement the results of the AFD" that we saw with the previous AFD doesn't happen again. Note - I'm still strongly in favor of keeping, but I am also strongly in favor of following processes except in rare cases that don't apply here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Like WP:N says:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if [etc etc etc]. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. ... Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
This is a classic situation where such discretion should be exercised. The article says essentially threefour things about the subject: when she was born, where she lived, when she died, and what she died of. The rest is GRG fancruft like "The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare did not announce her name officially (only her residence and age were released). Furthermore, at that time, her record was not yet identified and recognized by the Gerontology Research Group." Who gives a shit? She should be an entry in an list article. EEng (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article "could" be merged doesn't mean it should. There is more information in this article than just the details you've mentioned (four of them that you mentioned, by the way, not three). Just because you "don't give a shit" doesn't mean no one else does. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it should be merged because it could be merged; I said it should be merged because it should be merged. And, actually, there's nothing else in the article beyond the four things I mentioned and the usual longevity fancruft (e.g. "she was the second-oldest right-handed person south of the Mason-Dixon Line other than people in Asia with no home telephones"). Here it is in its entirety:
Koto Okubo (大久保 琴 Ōkubo Koto?, 24 December 1897 – 12 January 2013) was a Japanese supercentenarian who, at the time of her death aged 115 years and 19 days, was recognized as the oldest woman in the world and the second oldest living person behind Jiroemon Kimura. At the time of her death, Okubo was one of only 29 people verified to have lived to the age of 115.
Koto Okubo became the oldest woman from Japan and Asia after the death of Chiyono Hasegawa on 2 December 2011. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare did not announce her name officially (only her residence and age were released). Furthermore, at that time, her record was not yet identified and recognized by the Gerontology Research Group.
The name of Okubo was finally reported by the Japanese press on 14 September 2012,[3] and on the same day, Okubo was verified and added to the GRG list and Guinness World Records.
Okubo lived in a nursing home in Kawasaki, Kanagawa with her son. She died of pneumonia on 12 January 2013.
EEng (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above supporters of merging. If there's nothing else to say about her, there's not enough for a separate article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was the oldest living woman in the world for almost a month, and the oldest living woman in Japan for over a year, these are surely good enough reasons to justify a seperate article. Bodgey5 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mrs. Okubo was the world's oldest woman for a period of time and was recognised as such by Guinness World Records, among others. Her name was revealed in September 2012 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and, as a consequence, reports about her, including biographical information, began to emerge/surface immediately - as evidenced by these reports, [13] and [14], from September 2012 - as such, they prove that more biographical information is readily available and also augment her notability. On top of that, if making it to the status of World's Oldest Woman, backed up by a GOVERNMENT agency as a source, is not notable enough in itself, then this does not bode well for other WOM/WOW/WOP candidates - whereas the notability they have received in worldwide media press coverage has surely deserved them a notable status. My point is: the feat of reaching an old age can, in itself, be considered as deserving of notability, with a Jeanne Calment being the posterchild example, of course. For Koto Okubo, as well, her name will always remain in the record books - and thus will always carry some sense of notability, albeit that biographical information on her might be more difficult to find as Wikipedia is a WESTERN-oriented organisation with most of its members not fluent in Japanese. Last of all, it is disappointing to read that members of the WOP group in this encyclopedia are stereotyped as "fancruft" or pinned in a corner with remarks as "who gives a shit?" To me, this comes across as downright condescending as well as serious POV-pushing and is thus in violation with WP:NPOV. As far as I am concerned, the decision in this AfD nomination should be made on the basis of objectivity - "fancruft" and "who gives a shit?" don't point towards that. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This woman was the oldest woman in the world. Not only that but she is one of the few people to have have reached age 115 of all time and also one of the very few women to have held the title of 'oldest woman' in the world and not also 'oldest person'. I believe this article to be of use and interest. JKSD93 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — JKSD93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep General consensus seems to be that world's oldest women and world's oldest man titleholders are notable enough to warrant their own article. Notability due to a title is not temporary. Even monarchs who reigned for a short time are notable enough for their own article. But this isn't about the first AFD or bringing the article back afterwards...it's about whether the upgrade in status to the Guinness world's oldest woman titleholder brought enough recognition to meet the Wikipedia "notability" standard. I would say "yes". It's been "yes" for everyone else since at least the 1980s. Why should this case be different? The article does contain more than just her birth/death dates and her country of residence. The fact that one other user in this discussion "doesn't give a shit" about anything else is irrelevant. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Administrative note A few edits before this one, an editor completed a WP:Non-admin closure of this AFD. It was contested. Regardless of the merits of the close (or lack thereof), when an editor in good standing contests a non-admin closure, it means that the non-admin closure is in and of itself contentious and the discussion should remain open until an admin closes it. Unless this discussion qualifies for a "speedy close" now or in the future, it is unlikely that any admin will close it before the normal 7-day discussion period ends. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Correction and mea culpa: I was wrong. The procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions is exactly the opposite of what I said in my stricken remarks. The proper procedure would be for any editor (other than the person who originally closed the discussion) to re-close it, subject to any administrator re-opening it. Given the nature of this particular "early close" and the almost certainty that an administrator would quickly re-open it, WP:Ignore all rules applies - the editor who re-opened the discussion's decision should stand since the end result - the discussion being re-opened - would be the same. Please do not re-close the discussion before the 7 days are up, as it will just be a waste of time as I or another editor will call in an administrator and it will be re-opened. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment EEng, I am curious as to why you added SPA tags to various "Keep" votes on this Afd, my vote included. If you actually took the time to look at my contributions (of which there are over 500) you will see that they are by no means exclusively related to longevity article, in fact, for a long time after joining Wikipedia, my edits were almost entirely related to Snooker articles. I note that you have also added the SPA tag to the votes of Ollie231213, Fiskje88, and JKSD93, and yes, it's true that these users do make edits to longevity articles, but they DO NOT exclusively edit longevity pages, something which you have implied when you added the SPA tags. All of these users voted to "Keep" the article, and i'm sure that by adding the SPA tags, you hope to further your cause to get this article on Koto Okubo deleted, but the fact is that you have falsely accused users of having single-purpose accounts. Take JKSD93 for example, they have edited hundreds of articles, many of which have NOTHING to do with longevity, and yet you still added the SPA tag to their vote. If you could elaborate as to why you did this, i'd appreciate hearing your explaination. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SPAs are routinely identified in AfD discussions. That's primarily what the template is for. It doesn't require exclusive editing in a given area, just few edits outside an area. And someone, like yourself, who suddenly reappears after two years to edit almost entirely in one area counts as well. EEng (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you looked closer, you may see that whilst a number of my edits are related to longevity articles, I also edit pages on other topics, in fact, just yesterday I created another Snooker tournament article, namely the 1998 Scottish Masters page. So your statement that I only make a few edits outside of longevity articles is a false accusations. But there's also JKSD93, who makes lots of edits outside the topic of longevity, yet you also added an SPA tag to his vote. Bodgey5 (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC) @Bodgey5: I formatted your comment on the assumption you were directly replying to EEng's comment of 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC). If I am wrong, please re-format it so it is clear who you are replying to. EEng, I also indented your comment for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there anything that can even be said about this person that would not belong in the article on Japanese Centenarians anyway? Looking at the article now, the only important piece of information I see that would not go there is her cause of death. If no sources exist to expand this article beyond a rehash of content that exists elsewhere, I see no need for an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noticed that many of the contributors here have been pinned down as people solely editing in the field of WOP (thus, stereotyped as "trying to edit-war their GRG-biased POV"). I would like to say that although I can see the point of view of others - I have made few contributions outside the field of WOP - that does not mean that I agree with all of the lists and articles within the WOP field per se - thus, that I have an SPA. I also don't like me being pinned down as a GRG-biased fan. Does it not make sense that someone who follows developments within the field of longevity also edits on that subject within Wikipedia? It would make no sense for me to make edits within the subject of football; as a Dutchman, I cannot even name ONE of the players of our national football team. Moreover, I have been a member of Wikipedia for a couple of years, yet I don't see why a well-reasoned argument is immediately targeted as being part of an SPA. To get back to the topic of this AfD, I do feel that an article on a WOM is legitimate - solely for the feat that this makes her notable and existent 'in the books' forever. I am disappointed to see that my response has therefore been pinned down as another piece of 'fancruft'. In fact, drawing this parallel wider, you could even argue that if all the people with a POV who have responded here - both the (at times biased?) WOP members and the editors adamantly trimming down on WOP-articles [both WOP editors and anti-WOP editors can be filtered out easily by looking at their contributions] - are left out, the only neutral - thus fair - comment so far given is by davidwr. Perhaps a decision for this AfD should only be based on the truly neutral posts here? Fiskje88 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am shocked to see my account labelled as SPA in this discussion, who made this decision and on what basis? I joined Wikipedia originally to create a page for a local sociologist who died and who I believed was notable enough for a page on this site. But don't take my word for it, look at the facts: I have made 153 edits on Wikipedia since I joined on 27 January 2011, 41 of which have been related to WOP articles, that's 26.7%... Can anyone in all seriousness claim that my account is a Single-purpose Account when just 26% of all edits I have made are related to the alleged 'single purpose'? I believe this labelling to be an attempt to undermine perfectly good points raised by users who have had ANY past association with anything to do with WOP articles. JKSD93 (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned, someone (such as yourself) who suddenly appears after long inactivity, merely to comment on AfDs in a certain area, certainly counts. EEng (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely absurd reasoning. Is 3 months absence 'long inactivity'? I was absent for 6 months in 2014 and my first edit upon returning was to an English MP. Is that edit suspicious? Returning after long inactivity to 'merely' make one edit on a politician? I have things to do, I edit and contribute when I feel compelled to, and when I see unfair attempts to delete perfectly decent articles related to a topic I am interested in, I feel compelled to have my say and defend them. I certainly don't think my contribution here should be dismissed or be undermined simply because I'm not on here as regularly as you think is acceptable, and regardless of what you want to call my account, it is certainly not a single-purpose account. JKSD93 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
153-41=112 edits is "few edits", period -- no matter what the topic area. EEng (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians The GRG project aka WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People is getting step-by-step closer to being disbanded by the community for exactly the kind of activity going on in this AfD. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the same reasons that I nominated this for deletion the first time. The fact that she was World's Oldest Person in and of itself is irrelevant for determining if she should have a stand-alone article, since there's no Wikipedia policy on the oldest anything being automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines, which require widespread non-trivial coverage. Since she chose to remain anonymous for the most part, the only coverage of her that exists are mentions of her status among the world's oldest, which can be included easily on one of the many longevity-related tables/lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 08:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do feel that Koto Okubo's status as a WOW qualified her for "widespread non-trivial coverage". As has been stated in [15], "[s]ignificant, independent coverage in reliable sources is required"; Koto Okubo qualifies for this, as her status as the World's Oldest Woman garnered her attention and she was covered in worldwide media press ranging from The Huffington Post, see [16], to CBS News and from The Telegraph to Japan Daily Press. To justify the retention of Mrs. Okubo's article, it is not only worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not a hardcopy encyclopedia - thus not limited to space - but also that notability is not determined by the length of an article. Mrs. Okubo's article could still be expanded on by adding material from other sources that might be located in the future. To draw the discussion even wider... Wikipedia has articles on every player who once participated in any major league sports, even if they played just one game - and this is in the Wikipedia guidelines! Moreover, there are entire Wikipedia articles on draws of virtually all Grand Slams there have ever been in the Open Era of tennis, and statistics on various tennis players - the latter clearly violating the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Surely, if these articles are justified, an additional policy of people having attained WOP/WOM/WOW status can be proposed. Now don't get me wrong; I see the need to trim down on trivial articles on supercentenarians as I realise that Wikipedia is a(n) (scientific) encyclopedia instead of a "fanclub" - I understand that not everyone should have an article about him/her, I am not delusional - yet I do think that a status as WOP/WOM/WOW (a title which will always be in the history books) justifies having an article about that person, even if it is not the longest of articles. Lastly, there is not a single WOP/WOM/WOW titleholder from the last thirty years without an own article; then why should Mrs. Okubo be the lone exception to that? It seems to me that some of the voters here are doing it out of WP:Point. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I do feel that Koto Okubo's status as a WOW qualified her for "widespread non-trivial coverage" -- you fundamentally misunderstand notability. We don't care whether something qualifies a subject for nontrivial coverage (whatever that means, come to think of it); we care whether there actually is such coverage. And as already noted, even if a subject is notable, that doesn't mean the best way to cover him/her/it is in a standalone article. As to "why should Mrs. Okubo be the lone exception?", the answer is WP:OTHERCRAP. EEng (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: who is 'we'? I didn't know I was tangled up in an "us versus them" discussion and I do not appreciate the tone that comes forth from "we don't care"; it comes across as belittling and 'everybody sides with me', whereas what I am trying to show here is that there are also arguments in favour of keeping the article. You can simply agree with those or not and agree to disagree and there is no need to call out on me for trying to defend an article. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is "we WP editors", nothing to do with us vs. them, though it could be "those who understand guidelines and policy vs. those who don't", I suppose. EEng (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the myriad of WP guidelines that have been posted in this AfD supporting a 'keep' for this article (WP:GNG and WP:ARTN being the latest) clearly demonstrates that "those who understand guidelines" is a definition that does not hold true; there is more than one way to interpret a guideline. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, yes, but one wonders if the interpretation of someone such as yourself, with 142 edits total (all in this one subject area), would be very reliable. EEng (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians as notability is solely attributable to age. There is no content in the article apart from references to her longevity, and can easily be incorporated there. A stand alone article is not warranted for the single event of the fact that she lived. Scr★pIronIV 13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification The anonymous user with the IP-address "166..." is not a member of the GRG or 110 Club and has a reputation of making up death dates. So please do not believe that what this person says represents the GRG's point of view. 930310 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

striking all of the below Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) ====WP:WOP members or WOP-SPA editors !voting here==== * Fiskje88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * JKSD93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * Bodgey5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * JKSD93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * Fiskje88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * White Eaglet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * (only member not to vote !keep) CommanderLinx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) * 166.176.58.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) * 166.170.48.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[reply]

====non-WOP members==== * EEng * Canadian Paul * Someguy1221 * Davidwr I have been involved in WOP articles in the past. While I am not a "listed member" or a recent active participant in that project, listing me in the "non-WOP members" in this context is potentially deceptive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) * DAJF * JJMC89 * Oscar248 * Egsan Bacon * Ricky81682 * Hoary * DerbyCountyinNZ * Edward321 * Georgia guy * ScrapIronIV[reply]

end striking Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. There's not enough info to support an article, and that will never change now. We could only pad it out with unsourced trivia. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as she is notable for a single event and there isn't sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Ca2james (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Notable only for one event (becoming very old) and not enough coverage to write an article beyond "she still reads the newspaper without glasses and likes to sing" cruft. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Living to an extremely old age is NOT one event, it's an intrinsic part of the person and her status as a former world's oldest woman will remain forever. The WP:ONEEVENT guideline is refers to people who, say, were eyewitnesses to a notable event but were not significantly involved in it, or only had "15 minutes of fame". That clearly doesn't apply in this situation. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then her notability was for less than a month, for that is as long as she held the title. It was only an "intrinsic part" of her existence for that time. Even then, at 115 was she even involved in the process? Was she awake, aware, cogent? Possess faculties? The article states absolutely nothing about her life, only that she took longer to achieve the final act of living than other people. That is not notability, it's not even an event. Scr★pIronIV 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, her longevity was an intrinsic part of her as a person and still is (the fact that she lived to 115 has not changed even after her death), and although she only held the title for a month, she still remains as a former titleholder. Note that I'm addressing a wider issue here, which is that the WP:ONEEVENT guideline has been frequently misapplied to try and delete articles of people notable for their longevity. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noted that, although the "striking" has ended now, the people posting here had been divided in either WOP-members or non-WOP-members. I would like to point out that this division does not represent reality; many of the people part of the non-WOP-members (EEng, DerbyNZ, Canadian Paul, Ricky81682, and CommanderLinx among others) have vigorously and voraciously tried to trim down on and delete WOP articles before. If the purpose of this AfD is to get a neutral outcome, then it should be taken into account that many 'merge' votes are not neutral either. It seems to me that the blatant negative tone used by some of these editors might have even scared off neutral, uninvolved parties from voting in this AfD. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of coverage out there, so the WP:GNG is satisfied. I added several English-language sources, and could have added more. WP:BLP1E could apply, except that there is no way to ahve an article about the "event" of her becomign oldest living woman. Therefore I feel this article is justified by policy, and i don't see the delete argumetns as having much value. Granted this is a stub, there is nothing wrong with accurate, well-sourced stubs. DES (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly identical "sources" all obviously reprinting a press release or other upstream source, count as just one. EEng (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that information about Mrs. Okubo has been based on one single source; she also received media attention in, for instance, September 2012, when her name was released.
I was referring to the "several English-language sources" that DES said he added. EEng (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub-like bio. Though I don't feel strongly about a merge, if all the content here is merged into some other article (list of oldest people in the world at the time of death). So long as no information is lost, what's the difference in where it is? Lumpers and splitters should both be happy with WP:SS. I just don't like deleting info, per WP:NOTPAPER. The only argument I can see for leaving this a stubbish stand-alone bio, is that, in a sense stand-alone articles, even stubs (especially stubs) invite further contribution in the same manner as a redlink does. Perhaps somebody out there (for example) has a WP:V source for how this woman lived, what she ate, whether she was demented and when (if so), or something about the ages of her ancestor deaths, etc., which will later aid somebody in a hypothesis about the causes of these unusual things. Keeping this a stub is pretty harmless, as she's dead.SBHarris 00:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is cited by reliable sources such as The Telegraph. OscarL 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's an original argument, don't think I've ever seen that one before. Can you perhaps tell us on what policy or guideline you base your assertion that having been cited by The Telegraph implies that an article should be kept? --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what would be lost in a merge? EEng (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I correct myself: List of Japanese supercentenarians can take it. Esquivalience t 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My God! Calm, reasoned discussion results in one editor changing another editor's mind at AfD! Alert the media! Let's you and I hold a joint press conference! EEng (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep it was verified by the GRG which is the definition of WP:V. 166.170.50.204 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Block evasion. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It was verified by the GRG which is the definition of WP:V" is the definition of what's wrong with WP:WOP. EEng (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Marquee 1967[edit]

Live at the Marquee 1967 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PROD'd and author contested. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. A non-notable, non-charting album. Azealia911 talk 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Kinds of Love[edit]

Two Kinds of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PROD'd and author contested. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A non-notable, non-charting song, with the thick of the article being one large quote-farm. Azealia911 talk 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – That it was Nicks' first single that didn't chart doesn't make it notable. In fact it makes it non-notable. How anyone is allowing a quote that long in a Wikipedia article is beyond me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources it has do not establish notability and over half the article is a quote. Me5000 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Connan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom Connan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person does not appear to meet WP:BASIC in having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. The existing sources do not appear to be reliable, and the more detailed sources appear to be press releases or very much based on them. Previous AfD was inconclusive due to lack of scrutiny and involvement Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It does not seem relevant to question the notability of Connan again since there is now much more evidence of that notability. The page mentions lots of references from various resources (not only press releases but also blog articles, DJ playlists, interviews and so on). Furthermore, there had been a real debate about this when the page was created. Justinlived (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Justinlived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sorry, but press releases and blog postings and listings DO NOT establish notability. Coverage in multiple reliable sources do. So you might study WP:RS to better understand just how Wikipedia determines the worth of a site. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only self-published blogs are not usable. On the contrary, and according to WP standards, some may be acceptable as sources "so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write". Anyway, I see several reliable sources which are not "blogs" nor press releases. There is a difference between a "press release" and a "news article". Justinlived (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a press release. This republishes the press release. What sources appear reliable to you? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This republishes the "Chorus and Verse" source mentioned below.Justinlived (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several reliable sources which establish a certain notability, especially in the music industry. The fact that it appears to be an "avant-garde" artist and not yet mainstream does not make it non-notable. For what seems to be a young artist, it sounds fair enough. We need to be careful: Wikipedia is not (only) a mainstream encyclopedia. Josephduvignere (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Josephduvignere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Actually you are incorrect. Please read WP:RS to better understand how Wikipedia determines the reliability of sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are reliable in regards of (i) the piece of work itself, (ii) the creator of the work and (iii) the publisher of the work. Also, secondary sources are preferred. Here, we have lots of primary sources but we also have several secondary sources from music websites mainly. Again, we have to make a difference between "mainstream" music media (Billboard, etc.) and "avant-garde" or smaller media in that field. In the field of electronic dance music, which is concerned with Connan, there are several levels of media, which doesn't mean only one type should be considered. We have 3 or 4 reliable secondary sources here (which only concern the musical aspect however). Josephduvignere (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please identify these 3-4 sources. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an article about his first single from an electronic dance music media, here is an article about the "lyric video" of his second single from another EDM media, and here we have an interview with a music journalist. Also, we have here a mention of a specific remix, and there about what seems to be his last single (both Russian music sites). Maybe we should remove some unnecessary primary sources to avoid any further confusion. Josephduvignere (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chorus & Verse source provides significant coverage and might be considered reliable. Electro WOW is a blog that has the slogan "Electronic Music Promotion", and the other sources do not appear to be reliable or have significant coverage. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electro Wow is "a music blog which started on May 1st, 2007. This blog is exclusively for DJs, clubbers or ravers who love Techno and House music", see here. Stitched Sound is "an online music magazine that brings you news about both upcoming and distinguished artists", see here. Not to mention several inclusions in DJ playlists, like here or there, which is an important aspect for an EDM artist. Josephduvignere (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BASIC is failed. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the links on the page are usable for notability purposes (as explained by Schmidt above) and a search did not bring anything that would show that Connan would otherwise pass notability guidelines. I know that it's difficult for non-mainstream artists to gain coverage, but that does not mean that they are exempt from the notability criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering the person's main occupation as singer, the notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO can also be applied here, and Connan does not appear to meet any of this criteria. In addition, WP:BASIC says, "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria," referencing WP:NOT. From this, WP:PROMO #4 (self-promotion) can apply, especially considering that both editors !voting to keep have only edited articles related to Connan and nowhere else. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:EXTERNALREL says, "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship undermines that primary role, or could reasonably be said to do so, that person has a conflict of interest... How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse." Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am concerned, I have no personal or professionnal relationship with Connan. I wonder why this argument is raised while several elements establishing a certain notability have been showed precisely. The only "reward" Wikipedia can give to its authors is the satisfaction that we can have from creating (or participating to the creation of) new content. I thought courtesy was also part of the Wikipedia guidelines... Josephduvignere (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Single-purpose accounts need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Such accounts' editing history can be pertinent to these discussions. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have to echo Schmidt's sentiments at the other AfD: this can be seen as sockpuppetry or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, which can be checked. Basically, it's a little suspicious that we have so many single purpose accounts coming here to vote "keep". If you were asked to come and vote on this AfD, you really, really need to state this somewhere for transparency's sake. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not "asked to come and vote". As you can see, I was one of the first persons to update the page regularly. I think it's my role to give my opinion for things that I have modified or added myself. Wikipedia is not the property of experienced users. I also have to say that being interested in someone's work doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Josephduvignere (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is: how many reliable secondary sources are needed? The mentioned guidelines seem pretty vague about this. If "several" means more than two or three, then this artist could be considered notable, even according to the specific music notability guidelines. The limit of this exercise is human interpretation which appears to be pretty subjective at some point. Nevertheless, the whole article should be rewritten as the actual version mixes potentially reliable sources with unreliable ones.Johnmeyerohio (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Johnmeyerohio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The article does not mix unreliable sources with reliables ones, it just uses primary sources along with secondary sources. It would not make sense to mention several secondary sources without any reference to primary ones. Thank you. Justinlived (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but it does not seem relevant to mention several references with the same content -especially in regards of press releases.Johnmeyerohio (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a WP:PROMO advert of an artist without any claim of notability, non-charting songs, unreleased film, refbombed with blogs and other unreliable and primary sources Kraxler (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While this artist may have success in the future, he seems to be only barely notable at the moment. The kind of material cited in the article right now really are far from the sort of sources that we want. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book Market Research[edit]

Black Book Market Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted (but I can't tell if it was speedied, so if this is, that's fine), and still fails GNG and CORP. This article is solely based upon sources that do not establish notability of the company. The surveys are limited-audience in the first place (healthcare tech). The information about the company itself comes from the company itself. Citation of surveys (its "product") says nothing about the company itself, nor does it confer notability on the company. The surveys cited as "private polls for US News and World Report" are not; they are surveys cited by US News in articles, in each case being one paragraph and not a major focus of the article. In neither case does US News indicate it commissioned the surveys, which it would be *required* to disclose to comply with journalistic ethics. Two of the three articles cited for "EHR vendor replacement" are written by the same author (conveniently left off the citations), and the other one might be as well, except the link is dead. The only outside sources that talk about Black Book refer to its surveys in news articles in general, not the company. Companies who refer to their surveys do so because those companies are highly ranked in those surveys - therefore, those sources are not independent or third-party. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, preferably speedy under WP:CSD#G11 (blatant promotion) which is the grounds on which I deleted it. Note that it was re-created by the same person who created the original. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOOEC TALK[edit]

MOOEC TALK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOOEC. Again, while the list of references look impressive at a glance, they don't actually even mention, let alone cover, the subject of the article. The article appears to be the product of synthesis and original research from those references, and since I can't find any good sources that actually cover this subject, that problem seems to be unfixable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better with this being the best result. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable software. I'm sure it is useful, but I find nothing about it in secondary sources except for the article SwisterTwister links to. --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Algolia[edit]

Algolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails at WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Not enough coverage on reliable source. 5 out of 7 references are self published by the company or entities related to the company. Other sources are not reliable. Plus this article is promoting the subject. G11 and A7 was removed by a wikipedian user with a dubious edit summary. Hitro talk 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the subject here, then this is a tiny, newish article on a little-known startup. A startup which has though passed through Y Combinator (who know a thing or two) and who have raised $18.3M in funding.[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
I fail to understand the notion that because there are a number of SPS sources here explaining the technology, those then invalidate the independent reporting of the company's third seed round funding.
This is not a good article. There is minimal coverage out there on the company and it is still strongly focussed on the May 2015 funding round. However to claim that this fails WP:CDS#A7 – you're having a laugh. Maybe coverage will improve in the future. Maybe an editor with time to work on improving articles will get the chance to do so, rather than sinking into this pointless waste of time here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is well aware of what he is doing, you can't justify him with his 50 last edits when he has over 12000 edits. However, 1.Edit war "edit-war", that was my first edit to that article, it should not be considered edit war plus this is not the place to discuss edit wars. 2. Adding adding, I restored CSD and informed you on your talk page, you should not just make a fuss about it. 3. ReAdding re-adding, I again informed you on your talk page and explained in my edit summary why I restored the CSD and asked you to make case on talk page. Article creator should not remove the CSD template, it's clearly mentioned on the template. I guess you never understood what I meant. Hitro talk 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now coming to the article, self published sources have no strength of verifiability, the sources in the article are mostly written by company employees or are unreliable. If you think coverage will improve in future and people will improve this article then I should say that this is not an encyclopedic article in it's current form and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hitro talk 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Dedicated articles at Forbes (yes, FORBES!), Market Wired, Tech Crunch, Venture Beat. Interviews at Stack Share and profiled at Crunch Base. Coverage is international. There is more, but that is more than enough to justify its existence. Easily meets WP:ORG for WP:CORPDEPTH alone. Statements of promotional tone were questionable at best, and certainly not unambiguous enough for a Speedy Delete request. Recommend a serving of WP:TROUT to go with a WP:SNOW keep. Scr★pIronIV 21:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, it's not an article. It is a blog and it is clearly mentioned on the page Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.. So please do not exaggerate your opinion on a blog. Coverage should be in reliable sources, it hardly matters it's international or Italian or from Papua New Guinea. That is not the point to keep an article. Fails at WP:ORG that's why it is nominated. Certainly fails at WP:CORPDEPTH but it qualifies few points mentioned in the "except" section of that criteria. There are trivial information in TechCrunch And VB about 18.3 million investment. That does not make a company encyclopedic. Why other sources are reliable? Are they reliable enough? I dont think they are. Hitro talk 21:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blogs can be a WP:RS, when appearing in vetted magazines and newspapers. There is oversight - and not all blogs are opinion pieces. We are talking Forbes, not Wordpress. Or do you fail to understand what Forbes is? The point of international coverage is not whether it is "Italian or from Papua New Guinea" - International coverage displays breadth of coverage, and international importance. It DOES matter when a company gets international coverage. Your failure to understand that basic fact is appalling. Yes, the article can be improved, and it is not perfect. But it never qualified for your spurious "Speedy Delete" request, and should not be deleted through this process either. Scr★pIronIV 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forbes is not endorsing that blog. Yes we are not talking Wordpress Joomla or Drupal. We are talking Forbes and they are not endorsing the source that you are making your case upon, Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.. How many times do you see that written on Forbes article....specially when you find a dedicated article at Forbes and written by Forbes staff. It does matter when a company get coverage in reliable sources, otherwise we will never have articles of company from Jamaica, Ecuador or Fiji. Now, Blogs can be WP:RS. Please link that section in WP:RS where they mentioned Blogs can be reliable. DID you meanWP:NEWSBLOG? Hitro talk 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the Infrastructure section in particular could use a rework/removal. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. By no means a perfect article, but it isn't overly promotional and it seems to have sufficiently well sourced to justify notability. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources are questionable, thats why it's here. Hitro talk 21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's here because you chanced across it, and you don't do any other editing than listing things at CSD: so you listed it, and you re-listed it, and you re-listed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are millions of articles in Wikipedia. I definitely came across it by chance, so what?. If you wanna criticize my contribution then talk to me on my talk page. We will and we should discuss about this article here, nothing else. Wikipedia is good place cuz useless articles get deleted speedily and it's cuz of those contributors who list those useless articles, we should not take their contributions lightly or for granted. We should respect every single contribution. I tell you now.... This article is here cuz it has weak sources.... Lets discuss the sources one by one... highscalibility.com.. that article is written by Julien Lemoine( CTO @ Algolia). leanstack.io ...that article is written by Nicolas Dessaigne(CEO @ Algolia). medium.com ...it's again the article written by CTO at Algolia. Other sources are directy from algolia.com. Forbes stuff is a blog. I mentioned it above. Other sources from techcrunch and VB are referring to the investment of 18.3 millions USD....I dont think it makes this company encyclopedic. This article is here for those reason. Plus read Technology and Infrastructure section, they are written in complete promotional tone, at least nowhere near to an encyclopedic article. I still think there is no indication of importance or notability. Hitro talk 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for information and to get pass any confusion, Forbes bloggers are known as Forbes Contributors. Forbes do not endorse their views, anyone can become a Forbes contributor if he or she has good writing skills. Article by Forbes staffs are endorsed by Forbes. Refer to contact section and Forbes Terms for more info on this. Hitro talk 20:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator Apparently the OR aspect doesn't bother anyone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-income places in the United States[edit]

List of highest-income places in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From all appearances, the list is all WP:OR. The only source listed is a entry page to the 2000 US Census. No reliable third party has compiled this list. The topic itself could merit a list, but if we remove the OR, there's nothing left here. This is probably case of it being better to just delete and start over, especially since the source material used is all 15 years old and has been superseded. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update, all census data is available for each decade online, even if the current link is broken. The sister article on the poorest places has been updated with data from the 2010 census. The census is every 10 years so by time it is published it is already out-of-date. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that it's OR. Who says these are the 100 richest? Someone who sorted through them? Are they reliable or did they do haphazard work? Using a reliable source to create your own conclusion is WP:SYNTH. If the census produced this table, it would be acceptable. Or a reliable third party. This is not from anyone but an editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak "keep and update: but okay with "delete and immediately rewrite with current data" - WP:OR arguments probably don't apply. I didn't read the raw census data but 1) it's probably obvious from the raw data that the information was true as of the 2000 census, and 2) the very nature of census data lends itself to this kind of data-extraction. WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. [emphasis added]" Although I did not actually read the census data, if it is like most census data then the part of WP:OR that I put in bold does NOT apply in this case and if the article is to be deleted, it needs to be deleted on other grounds, such as "hopelessly stale, time to light the fuse on the WP:TNT and re-write it with 2010 census data." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • David, I'm familiar with what OR says. I disagree with your assessment. There is nothing in the census website that clearly reaches this conclusion. Instead, we're to believe that someone went through all of the locations, determined the top 100, then put them all in order. Sure it can be done, but when it's a Wikipedia editor doing it, there is an element of OR involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs improved referencing and formatting. The references are too vague to know whether US census data has been faithfully reproduced or not, or whether there has been original research or synthesis. However, it is part of a series of article and there is no reason to assume bad faith. Overall keep, in this case the poor quality of article is not enough for me to recommend it be deleted.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really bad faith to question whether someone actually researched and accurately tabulated 6 separate lists of 100 places (and a 7th shorter list), using different criteria for each list? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which of you !voting keep is going to be willing to do all the re-writing you think it needs? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we do not discard articles if the only problem is that they need improvement DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we do discard articles that are based on OR. I've yet to see anyone show a third party make these conclusions. These lists are based solely on an editor taking several hundred pieces of information, putting them into lists and we're just accepting the validity. The fact that nobody even questions that is interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Getting off-topic here, bear with me) Actually, DGG, WP:Blow it up and start over is a good reason to delete an article. I am NOT saying that reason applies here, only that there are some articles where a "mercy killing" and starting over is appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I conceded from the start that the topic is probably notable but that this was probably a case of delete and start over, preferably with a reliable source constructing the lists. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I accept WP:TNT. I usually use it for a somewhat different situation, and In a somewhat milder wording: Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. I've not yet used it for OR, though, because if there are sources, they can always be added. I would apply it when the OR is perverse or fringy, not just merely saying on one's one authority what one could have equally well said it with sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gorik Khachatryan[edit]

Gorik Khachatryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that the article has several sources and references, possibly based on the mistaken impression that it was a BLPPROD. In any case, the coverage he has received is routine or run-of-the-mill sports journalism, insufficient for general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is a professional player at FC Ararat Yerevan and captained the team for 2 seasons, and one of the prominent defenders of the Armenian Premier League who plays for a fully professional club that clinched the USSR championship during the 1970s and played against Bayern Munich in the quarter finals of the European Cup.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.
Comments above by Spetsnaz1991 are misguided. Current consensus is that NFOOTY is only satisfied by participation in contental competition when the player in question has played firstly in the competition proper and secondly is involved in a match between two clubs both from fully professional leagues.
Furthermore, the argument that Ararat Yerevan is a fully professional club is irrelevant. full professionalism needs to be league wide and there is no consensus at WP:FOOTY that the Armenian league is fully professional. Its historic performance in the Soviet Union and the European cup is also irrelevant in determining the notability of a current player.
The sources provided in the article do not satisfy GNG:
  1. Football Database - is just a database entry, these exist for thousands of players across the world and do not amount to significant coverage.
  2. FC Ararat - is a profile on the club's website. As a primary source, this does not support GNG.
  3. ArmSport - Seems like a lengthy source, but the reference title in the aritlce in question indicates this is more about FC Ararat than the player. Not sure this supports GNG for this player but would welcome translation from an Armenian speaker.
  4. ArmSport - A very brief 3 question interview with the player. Not significant enough coverage to help support GNG.
  5. ArmSport - A very, very short bulletin. From the description in the players article, this is routine transfer talk, so not relevant in terms of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Rakic[edit]

Aleksandar Rakic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that the article has several sources and references, possibly based on the mistaken impression that it was a BLPPROD. In any case, the coverage he has received is routine or run-of-the-mill sports journalism, insufficient for general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is a professional player at FC Ararat Yerevan and the current captain of the team, and one of the prominent centre forwards of the Armenian Premier League who plays for a fully professional club that clinched the USSR championship during the 1970s and played against Bayern Munich in the quarter finals of the European Cup.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.
Comments above by Spetsnaz1991 are misguided. Current consensus is that NFOOTY is only satisfied by participation in contental competition when the player in question has played firstly in the competition proper and secondly is involved in a match between two clubs both from fully professional leagues.
Furthermore, the argument that Ararat Yerevan is a fully professional club is irrelevant. full professionalism needs to be league wide and there is no consensus at WP:FOOTY that the Armenian league is fully professional. Its historic performance in the Soviet Union and the European cup is also irrelevant in determining the notability of a current player.
The sources provided in the article do not satisfy GNG:
  1. Football Database - is just a database entry, these exist for thousands of players across the world and do not amount to significant coverage.
  2. FC Ararat - is a profile on the club's website. As a primary source, this does not support GNG.
  3. FC Ararat - is an interview on his employer's website. A primary source that does not support GNG by definition.
  4. News.am - a short interview consisting of 8 brief questions and answers. Could be used to support GNG if similar content could be found, but nowhere near enough on its own.
  5. Soccerway - is just a database entry, these exist for thousands of players across the world and do not amount to significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no professional league appearances and failure to meet general notability guidelines. Spiderone 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. meets WP:SK criteria 2b/d (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette aerosol[edit]

Electronic cigarette aerosol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · cigarette aerosol)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some editors suggested this article is not notable. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_3#Proposed_Merge_.28List_of_chemicals_in_e-cigarette_vapour.29. I think it is notable and should not be merged (or deleted). I recommend Keep. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um...This looks like an issue for the talk page, or RSN not AfD.--Savonneux (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaka Khogyani[edit]

Zaka Khogyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, judging by the lack of sources Mar4d (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being Director of Operations of a company is normally a notable characteristic, but it's of such a small airline that they don't even have a Wikipedia page. I have found zero reliable sources in a search (Google or News), indicating that while he may be good at his job, no one has taken notice of him. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately as I would've also suggested moving to the airline's page and my searches found nothing particularly good for Zaka with the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. meets WP:SK criteria 2b/d (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette)[edit]

Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (electronic cigarette))
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some editors suggested this article is not notable. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#Merger_Proposal_-_cloud_chasing. I think it is notable and should not be merged (or deleted). I recommend Keep. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_cigarette_aerosol this is not really the venue for mergers or sources of established articles.--Savonneux (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with regards to deletion. Whether to merge is an editorial decision and does not require an AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This rather strangely-named list is not about "living people" per se, but about how many people, who at some point of there lives have/had been PM, were living concurrently. All of this apparently has been derived from the birth/death dates of all PMs since the 17th century and, indeed, I cannot imagine anybody having addressed this topic in a reliable source. Complete OR and unencyclopedic listcruft. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's purely factual information, so I don't think it's exactly original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term. But it IS an indiscriminate collection of information, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. This is simply not the way that any reliable source treats history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of the information is this article is correct. It's purely and simply a guide as to who was alive at a certain time. In no way shape or form does this breach guidelines for WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Named Stu (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC) User:Boy Named Stu is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting one. Clearly this article was created based on the long-standing article, Living Presidents of the United States. I agree with Squeamish Ossifrage that this most likely is not OR, so the question becomes whether or not it is an "indiscriminate collection of information", which would cause it to fall into the category of listcruft. Perhaps it is different in the UK, but in the US there is a fascination with the number of living presidents (simply do a google news search and you get hundreds of hits). A google news search of Living Prime Ministers, however, does not return anywhere near that number of hits. I'm not attempting to make an argument from the viewpoint of WP:OSE, but I think the Presidents article is a valid one, and to quote from OSE: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability ...". It is much more developed article, but it has been around for 8 years. I'd hate to see a relatively new editor who is attempting to make contributions be discouraged. I see that the editor has an interest in UK political history, and is creating articles based on existing articles about US political history. He has another article, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth, again based on one about US Presidents, which is also in AfD (although in that instance, I think both articles, the PM and Presidents, should be deleted - I'm actually on the fence about that one).Onel5969 TT me 14:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can definitely see why the editor would want to do an article on UK Prime Ministers based on the ones on US Presidents. I think they're all a little irrelevant, but I do think they all play a vital part in history. Particularly given the fact that most UK PMs aren't exactly household names. As far as I know all of the information all of the articles on both UK PMs and US Presidents are correct. It would have taken this editor hours to compile all of this information. To the average person that wasn't a hardcore fan of British PMs or British politics for that matter, this article is the perfect one to gather all of the information one would need if they wanted to get this info, rather than spend hours trying to look for it. If this article was to be deleted, I reckon all of the ones on US Presidents should go too. Definitely for keeps.Silver Sovereign (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be best to incorporate this information into the main list but that's a matter of merger not deletion. See the BBC for evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not coverage of the concept of living PMs. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to AfD participants: Participants are reminded that AfD is not a vote and that arguments that are not policy-based will likely be ignored. "Being factual", for example, is not a policy-based argument (if the information were not correct, we wouldn't be talking about this but it would have been speedily deleted as a hoax or vandalism). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a particularly useless list. Nothing worth merging to any other list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I've never understood the fixation with presenting the same trivial information in a multitude of different ways. This article is just a list of trivia with shades of original research and synthesis, and has a misleading title. Reyk YO! 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I rest my case. Definitely not worthy of deletion. It's too important to delete. None of the other articles on British PMs cover this topic in as much depth as this. You cannot delete something that has as much meaning as this, despite the fact that others might interpret it as being "trivial". After all we're talking about British Prime Ministers here, not about something as meaningless as the winners of a certain chook raffle at a club, or something of that equivalent. After all, the PM's play a major part in world history here. It's an office that's been established since 1721. Long before the creation of the office of President of the United States. There are tons of articles on US Presidents that follow a similar blueprint to this, but hardly any on British PMs. I'm sure there is some sort of fascination among the number of living British PMs. This article is just a clear concise version of material that would ordinarily take hours to compile otherwise. Even if this article was merged with another one, it would the merged article too long in my view. Like the Living Presidents of the United States article, I think this one needs to be kept intact in it's own right. Boy Named Stu (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's unnecessery and useless WP:LISTCRUFT, why should anybody want to know how many former PMs are living or not at any time? The US presidents' list should be nominated for deletion posthaste. Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 16:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability of the topic "Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom through history" is not established. There is already very solid List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. For having additional lists about UK prime ministers with specific focus, you need to prove that such focus itself is actually a notable topic in this context.--Staberinde (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mathematical calculations are not original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While such lists should be limited to the highest offices and orders, there is encyclopedic value in providing access to this kind of information. As a purely anecdotal example, the only reason that I found this listing is that I was searching specifically for the topic of living prime ministers and presidents at the right time. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable topic such as this does not qualify as WP:Listcruft. Simply merging everything with List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom would make it too long and not as appealing. As opposed to this which covers this topic clearly and accurately. Halftime Hero (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Process Neo-Paganism[edit]

Process Neo-Paganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested (endorsed) PROD. No evidence of reliable source coverage and very little web footprint. Everymorning (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG with only a single self-published, two-paragraph source, and even that doesn't use the phrase, instead talking generally about how process theology can apply to paganism. --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, it does apply to views within neopaganism. It is false to say how it can apply, links were provided to prove it does apply as stated by some famous names by neopagan authorities and authors, books, and the most famous Neopagan website. With so many branches of contemporary Neopaganism, it would be impossible to list them all. Rather than looking for small semantics, we can observe from books etc. that process theology is a system widely observed by many neopagans AS TO HOW THEY BELIEVE THE CREATIVE PROCESS OF THE UNIVERSE OPERATES! THROUGH GRADUAL CHANGE RATHER THAN THOR WHILE MAINTINING pagan reverence for nature.. Since as the link says "recently" come into neopaganism, it is understandable as to why it is scarce amoung Wiki researchers. Being an up to date source of information, it our duty to keep those informed of various and recent beliefs In the Neo-pagan system. Wiki has a a page titled Christian Atheism. Ask yourself, with the sources I provided that proves this is a recent development in Neopaganism, Starhawk, etc., why should some non existant and ludicrous page as Christian atheism be on Wikipedia? As teachers of the modern era coupled with the evidence that this is a recent system that neopagans believe in, it is our duty to be on the cutting edge of information. Respectfully. — Paulcolizzo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Paulcolizzo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Delete. Appears to be original research under WP:SYN. While it's clear from looking at some of the cited authors that process philosophy and process theology are being used/discussed in pagan/neo-pagan theological circles, and while that means there is "process paganism," that conclusion is synthesis. Other than that one blog post Other than one docstoc document, I don't see anyone outside of Wikipedia using the term "process paganism" specifically. We need citations of that term in use. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, appears to be valid in Neopagan.Perhaps it deserves a new terminology. From Pagan Theology This is what many belief in Neopaganism as to the nature of god. 

Process – process theology

Paradox: God/dess is a verb. That is, God/dess (a subject) is a verb (a predicate). God/dess is the Dancer and the Dance. The fundamental insight of process theology is that reality is change. Change, motion, flux: these are the fundamental realities. Objects, things, moments in time: these are abstractions and unreal. This is true of all reality, including God/dess and ourselves. Quotes: “She changes everything she touches. And everything she touches changes.” — Starhawk (chant) “[T]he shape-shifiting, all-encompassing Goddess is a personification of the unending, unbroken sacred cycle of Birth-Death-Rebirth found throughout the cosmos. Nature is experienced as the Goddess’s ever-changing, cycling, divine Body-Self-Wisdom.” — Donna Wilshire, Virgin Mother Crone “While life is in us, we must live in the world, where the Dance is, and to live truly, we must join the Dance. There is no reason for this. There is no reason for the world, only the rhyme and the rhythm of the days and nights and the four seasons, without us and within. Life is a Dance and the beginning and end of our lives are steps only; the Dance goes on with us and without us. In time and space, we, as all things, arise and dance and in due time slow and cease to be. But the Dance continues. The Dance is; it always is.” — Michael Adam, Wandering in Eden: Three Ways to the East Within Us http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2013/08/pagan-theology-recommended-resources/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.103.130 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. RE: "it is our duty to be on the cutting edge of information" – No, that actually is not part of Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia's duty is to summarize notable information verifiably published by reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I stated in my PROD2 (now removed) and as has been stated here, while it is true that some prominent figures in neo-paganism are bringing elements of process theology into their examination of paganism, it does not appear to be the case that any of these figures (or anyone else, for that matter) has gone so far as to coin a new and widely used term "process neo-paganism". As such, this term appears to be WP:MADEUP and not meriting a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Aziz[edit]

Khalid Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to support claims in this article, article possibly written by the subject itself, regardless of the claims - do not think they are reliable and subject is not notable, cannot find many sources on the internet about this particular subject of this article, the only link is a link to the subject's own personal company, there are only two references in this article: one that does not say anything about the subject and the other links to one article that only briefly mentions him but does not support the claims of this article Sheroddy (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can actually be improved as my searches found nothing convincingly good and there was certainly enough for this article to improve since October 2004 and with that it has always been affected by promotionalism (whether intended or not and the first Oct. 2004 version actually had his contact details making it read even more like a personal page). SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and it's not a place to raise funds for charities, the info seems to be largely true, though, according to this Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet standards for notability. Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Fuzchia (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Guy Fawkes. T. Canens (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fox[edit]

Guy Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So after stumbling across this article somehow, I was hard pressed to find any sources about this character. I was instead sent to a lot of information on Guy Fawkes. And besides The Guardian source already in use, there doesn't seem to be enough info to warrant any notability. GamerPro64 14:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or actually restore original redirect from March 2006 (this article was started November 2007) as unfortunately as my searches found nothing to convince keeping especially after being here for this long. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the original redirect to Guy Fawkes. Not finding reliable source coverage for the fictional character. Not finding much about the charity it represents. It is a plausible search term for Guy Fawkes. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unitech Nirvana Country Gurgaon[edit]

Unitech Nirvana Country Gurgaon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neighborhood with no independent sources. Conifer (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete The outcome of this discussion seems to be that the current reliable sources are not sufficient. The article can be recreated if new sources are found the demonstrate notability beyond what is available now. Chillum 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone (Austrian band)[edit]

Cornerstone (Austrian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN Austrian band - existence is not notability. Charted one charity single for one week in 16 years. Not a major act, not a major label, fulfills no other criteria of WP:BAND despite a sixteen-year career. This was discussed here prior to PROD, as one chart on one song (apparently due to charity) was possibly not within the spirit of "meeting the criteria for an article." WP:BEFORE indicated no major sources. Endorsed prod was removed (and an extensive copyedit undone) by the article author, who has a COI (claimed he personally created band album artwork that was removed for licensing issues). The article creator is also an SPA, not having edited anything besides articles related to this band. The author also created move requests on the Cornerstone dab page [24] and Cornerstone [25] contrary to policy. Sources are not RS. "Rock Realms Magazine" is a website run by one guy. ATOM Records is a non-notable indie label. The article is full of puffery - the festivals they played at aren't verifiable, and had likely hundreds of acts - this band was not main stage. The "biggest British rock zines" are not "fireworks" and "Powerplay" but NME and the like. Awards a film wins do not contribute to notability of the bands on the soundtrack when the award is not for the soundtrack, not for labels that release albums by the bands on the soundtrack. MSJapan (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose MSJapan tagged the page Cornerstone for proposed deletion over and over again, altough reliable third party sources were delivered and refered to. MSJapan wants to remove the page plus related pages, because he personally hates the band and construct and invite reasons to do so, which has nothing to do with the reality or the facts. Simply ignores third party sources. I’ve already contacted Wikipedia in reagrds of this, block of IP requested because of vandalism. Talking ‘but the band page in accordance to WP: band:
“1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.”
Fullfilled. I have refered to two example sources (Classic Rock (magazine) and Powerplay Magazine), I don’t want to start refering to hundreds of reviews and interviews regarding the band. [1]
“2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart”.
Fullfilled. It doesn’t matter, if for one week or hundred weeks. [2]
“4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”
Fullfilled. Countless medias reported about the band’s USA-Tour and their several UK-Tours.[3]. I refered to one example source (Dayton Daily News). Again, I don’t start uploading and refer to hundreds of sources, because one guy hates the band
“10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. “
Fullfilled. Delivered two songs to the soundtrack “Little Alien”, which won multiple awards. Check out the films WP or the films Website.
“11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.”
Fullfilled. Rotation on national Austrian Radios Hitradio Ö3[4] and “Radio Wien[5] Example playlists delivered and refered, too.
Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet). The band played the mainstages at all of the Festivals that was mentioned, as cleary is viewable at the refered Flyers and several videos in the Internet. Btw., MSJapan, “Fireworks” and “Powerplay” are “two of the biggest rock’zines in the UK, not “the biggest”. Learn to read, or in case you can’t, tell me, so I’ll read it aloud for you. Let me add, that there should be no place on WP for personal grief and personal tastes. User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) User:Morrissey1976 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
  1. ^ Rich Wilson. "Bon Roxette, anyone?" (PDF). Classic Rock, Issue 05/2011, UK. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  2. ^ http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Cornerstone&titel=Smalltown+Boy&cat=s
  3. ^ Donald Trasher. "Austrian band teams up with Dayton record label". Dayton Daily News, US. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  4. ^ "Eberhard Forcher's Friday Night" (PDF). Hitradio Ö3.
  5. ^ "Heimat bist Du großer Töne" (PDF). Radio Wien, Austria. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:MUSIC #2 at least. I concur that that criteria is extremely problematic and sets the bar a lot lower than I'd like, but that's the policy that community consensus came up with. Arguably also meets WP:MUSIC #4 to make the whole thing moot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep Reduce to a stub I agree that the article appears puffed up and that the one charting single is meagre. However, it does meet WP:MUSIC, tenuously. If there is a CoI issue with the editor then that really needs to be dealt with elsewhere. The bickering injected here does not help either argument. Karst (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I berought it here because there was going to be an editwar otherwise, but someone might need to explain to me how Morrissey's reply to the notability discussion regarding the dab changes Of course I did this, to get more recognition for my site... isn't a problem. MSJapan (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a problem. However, trying to take an objective point of view and looking at the sources and the requirements it appears to pass, just about. As dubious as that chart position is. However, if there is an indication that the band or label initiated the creation of the page then there is a CoI issue. There obviously is another forum for that and an admin should be looking at that.Karst (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply: I've CREATED the site. It was a lot of work to do all the research and so on, so I want it to be found easily. Because one guy hates the band, and wants to remove all the content (+related contend) it was a lot of more work now. Morrissey1976 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)
  • Taking it personal doesn't help and please do remember you do not WP:OWN the page. As editors, we all have pages that we create which will be deleted or merged at some point. It is part of what Wikipedia is (and isn't). It is constantly evolving. That's what this discussion is about, to establish the merit of this article. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and avoid WP:Wikistress.Karst (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does appear to just barely pass WP:MUSIC. May not pass WP:MUSIC. I thought ATOM Records was a major label, but it's not. Yes, there's an WP:SPA problem, a WP:COI problem, and a WP:OWN problem. There's a discussion at WP:AN/I as well. I took some of the promotional language out of the article to help deal with those issues. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly meeting one criterion of WP:BAND is not a slam-dunk for inclusion; the guideline says the criteria may (not necessarily do) demonstrate notability. There's a pattern of promotion here which is incompatible with an encyclopedia. Miniapolis 22:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: I see several separate AfDs here. There is this plus the ones on the albums. Can we not merge them all, or is it too late now that they have all started? We don't want to risk a nonsensical outcome where, say, the band gets deleted but the albums get kept. I'll come back here an !vote in a bit, once I have worked out what is going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, as an alternative, reduce to a stub. This is deeply unimpressive. The intention is unashamedly promotional and clearly written by an insider, judging by the detailed but substantially unreferenced history. When I see "references" that claim to be one thing but actually point at the band's own website I wonder where the line between "accentuating the positive" and misleading the reader is. The film soundtrack is unimpressive as the film itself is of questionable notability and so it is attempting to inherit a shred of notability from something that, at best, only has a little of its own. One top 50 single in one country for one week? Yes, that is something. Not much, but at least it is something real. Does that get you an article? I feel probably not, certainly not a nest of promotional articles like this anyway. It is hard to know precisely how notable the band really are but even if they are just about notable a case could be made to junk most, if not all, of what we have here and make a nice, neutral, stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on this. Reduce it all to a stub along the lines of this article. Karst (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite Article could be claimed to have a COI, however this is irrelevant so long as it does not show in the text. As is, this somewhat comes through and should be toned down, with less focus on the band's achievements. Band appears to meet WP:BAND (as stated, whether for 1 week or a year, it still achieved a chart single) with (some) reliable sources, so I see no reason to remove the page IF the author agrees to phrase it properly. --Flobberz (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the author agrees to. He can publish what he likes on his own website but he owns nothing here. His only choice is to play within the rules here or to play elsewhere. We should not worry about this either way. If the article is reduced to a stub (or slightly more than a stub) then it can be defended against inappropriate additions. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flobberz commented on the "Somewhere in America" album AfD that the the album could meet BAND and NALBUM. I thought the comment was odd, so I looked at the user's contribs. I hate to WP:BITE, but Flobberz has less than 50 edits, has been on WP for three days, has only worked on one article (which has been sent to AfD), and already has several notability guideline discussion items on his talk page related to said article. His last comment on such is "Wikipedia simply has unrealistic standards." So I don't think he yet has the understanding necessary to be participating in AfDs. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply toMSJapan The problem, that we have here is, that you have a strong COI regarding the article Cornerstone and with this whole AFD, that you have started. I already wondered, why someone put such strong efforts into the deletion process of a - everyone excuse me this term here now - f***g band. But this make sense: reading all your other articles, except one, all of them are about Freemasonry, the term 'Cornerstone' has a strong meaning there (Which I wasn't aware of, when I wrote the article). I suppose, you are an expert and/or a part of this communion, and furthermore you want to remove the article either out of your own interest, or someone told you to do so. Strong COI. Btw., I found it quite interesting, how you judge about other people, as clearly seeable in your reply toFlobberz, whose suggestion was really calm and reasonable. May is suggest, that you'll do that within the organisations, you are part of outside of WP, not here? Thank you. Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2015 (CET+1)
  • Suggestion Any German speakers here might want to look at the German language version of the article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_%28%C3%B6sterreichische_Band%29. It has been edited heavily by the author here but it did exist before that. If there is good content there then they may want to bring it here. If there is bad content there then they may want to help deal with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There already is a discussion about it on the de.wiki talk page, I don't believe it has gone to AfD there. Let's concentrate on the en.wiki version here. Karst (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I followed the discussion here for a while, and except MSJapan, who has a COI with this article and the deletion discussion (I don't want to point this out again, read my comment before, if you are interested), most of the comments and suggestions are quite reasonable. I had some good advice, and because I wrote the article, because the band asked me to do so (they are not that familiar with WP) and I know one of the bandmembers, refered to the the WP-guidelines this is a COI, which I wasn't aware of. Ok... granted. Altough I not fully agree to DanielRigal opionion, I guess, his suggestion, to reduce the article to a stub (or slightly more) or re-write it, as another user suggested, sounds like a good compromise. Looking at other bands with a similar standing than Cornerstone, we can arguable discucss about one or another term, if it's "promotional" or not, but I've tried to stay objective, and I don't see more or less "promotional language" than on other pages. Which bring us to the sources and references: most of the band-stuff happened in printed magazines, Radio and TV (and of course on some websites, but most of them tend to change their URL's or site-organisaions from time to time. F.e. BBC Radio has a "Listen Again" section, but this will be removed after 30 days... and then? Source gone - problem!), so I prefer to use PDF's or similar for referencing, at least for the articles I write outside of WP. How will you "refer", if a song is in rotation at a radiostation, except uploading hundred of playlists? Except some die-hard fans, who collect any snippet of the band (and put them maybe in the Net, so I could refer to), it's hard to find collections of articles, interviews or reviews about the band and it's albums except at the band's website. I guess, every rockfan knows Classic Rock (magazine), and UK-based rockfans probably know "Powerplay" and "Fireworks", so this was the reason I've refered to those sources. But of course every other source is possible, a collection of around 150 press-snippets of the band could be founnd here [1]. Everyone is welcome to improve or remove terms from the article, that are not suitable - I can't do it directly, because I have a COI. Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (CET+1)
  1. ^ "Press-area". Cornerstone.
  • As there clearly is a CoI issue concerning this page, you should refrain from editing it further and indicate any requests/issues on the Talk page. That generally is the procedure. List any material there that might be useful and point to any errors or omissions. Also, inform the management of the band that this is what is happening, to avoid possible legal issues. Karst (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just wanted to point out that, from a sourcing standpoint, what is claimed to be "Classic Rock Magazine" is not; it is in fact just a scan of a CD sleeve from Classic Rock AOR issue 5, which means it's not the same magazine. According to the article, Classic Rock hit issue 150 five years ago, and doesn't apparently come with CDs included. Said magazine isn't even mentioned in the CR article, and the logo is different, so I don't even know if they publish it. MSJapan (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It indeed appears to be some sort of sleeve with the reproduction of a review? Classic Rock AOR is a spin-off of Classic Rock magazine, see here and here. Karst (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a 15-track disc, and there's only one track listed, so maybe it's a CD sleeve, and the other piece is a booklet with track-by-track reviews? I have no idea, but it violates WP:COPYLINKS (so it might need to go anyway) and is a pretty weak review. I'd drop it because the whole point of the addition is to cherry-pick two band names, but I'll leave it for now. It is indeed a spin-off of CR, so I've simply updated the reference. I also went through and basically re-did my initial copyedit and documented every change on the talk page. A lot of it is simply inflated (basically that the media outlets, awards, etc, are a lot bigger than they really are) and TBH, the de-wiki folks need to be made aware of the fact. I've documented several substantial errors in source claims on the talk page. MSJapan (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a message on the de.wiki pointing to this page. It appears to me that the consensus here is that the page needs to be reduced to a stub. Karst (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just about there now. However, the only notability they have is that one-week charting on the charity single, and the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that the charity tie-in was what sold the single (which was a cover of a popular song, to boot). Otherwise, the band has no press that one would expect of a band that meets GNG or BAND. It was an excellent marketing ploy, but put in perspective, this is the situation: we have a band that's been around for 16 or 17 years, has never been on a major label, and still plays the club circuit despite releasing three albums (none of which charted). Their "US tour" wasn't documented by anyone besides their record label's local paper, and they're second- or third-level billing on all of the festivals they've played, amongst a whole group of other bands no one seems to have heard of either. They may meet the technical requirements of one criterion of WP:BAND, but that's really pretty weak for a band that's been around since 1998. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed all the puffery and clarified every source as best I can. I looked up the AOR mag on Amazon, and it's a 132 page issue that I can't tell if Cornerstone is even mentioned in (though I would guess not), so I've made sure to clarify that this is all about the CD included. I've documented every removal I have made on the article on the talk page. BAND specifically excludes promo material from establishing notability. I can't document any of their history independently or otherwise. Their film soundtrack contribution isn't verifiable - the film's own website doesn't even list it, and no film reviewer mentions it. The statement about radio airplay is so subjective as to be unverifiable, so I removed it. In the end, we have a band that, in 16 years, had an indie charity single chart in Austria for a week (as a digital download), and that is the absolute extent of the criteria that they meet. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NBAND # 2, had a charting single in Austria's official charts, and there are enough other sources to comply with the general coverage requirement. WP:AfD is not cleanup, content decisions must be discussed at the pertaining talk page. Kraxler (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I did discuss those edits at the talk page. However, as the article author gave sources here intended to meet particular guidelines, it was necessary to discuss them here as part of the discussion. Most particularly that those sources, under scrutiny, were exaggerated in either scope or content. Also, as interviews with the band are specifically excluded from meeting notability in NBAND #1, I'd be interested to know (on the talk page) what you've found that establishes notability rather than mere existence. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The charting single establishes notability, as pointed out above, the coverage is only needed to have secondary source info for writing an article. Kraxler (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to rehash, but meeting a single criterion does not mean an article is guaranteed (and the guidelines say this). That means we're going to have a Wikipedia article on a band that charted one single for one week in sixteen years, and meets no other criteria of WP:NBAND whatsoever? Now, I have no problem with an article on the single (and there is one), but that doesn't have to (nor is it required to) stretch to covering the artist per WP:NSONGS. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NBAND says "Musicians or ensembles...may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria...". I suggest you respect other people's opinions. You nominated this for deletion, ok, and now the voters are telling you what they think about it. That the band passes the #2 criterion is undisputable. Really no need to rehash it, and I urge you really not to rehash it. The closer of this discussion will take into account all !votes, and all attempts at WP:BLUDGEONing. Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I worked this over and mostly stubified it today. There are really only 3 sources on this group. All are driven by local issues. As someone mentioned, their label's local paper did a piece on their US tour; a newspaper in Nottingham did a piece on them due a benefit concert they gave for a cystic fibrosis center there that is a big local deal, and there was a trademark spat with a UK band that got a bit of writeup in a local paper where a festival was going to take place where they were going to play. So super marginal/local with respect to sufficient independent, substantial sources to meet NOTABILITY. Add to that the PROMO campaign by the band's representative, and that tips me over to delete - we are not here to be used for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Just for the records. I'm not "a band's representative". As I clearly pointed out, the band asked me, to edit their german article, that already existed, and write it for the English section. I'm no periodical writer on WP, but work in scientific fields (educational topics, etc.). Yes, the remaining sources are "local", because you obviously removed the other sources Austrian Press Agency etc., the touring with former ALAN PARSONS/ FLYING PICKETS singer Gary Howard, the contribution to the film, for that Cornerstone contributed songs for the soundtrack (and which article your friend User MSJapan tries to delete as well, just to mention that). I really don't know, how many hours a day this fellow spends, for trying to remove the Cornerstone-article, because he don't like it or he can't accept other opinions. Next step will be probably, that the Officela Austrian Charts "are a fake". Of course! I don't see a "promotional meaning" here, WP should be an encyclopedia , where people could get most informations about certain topics fast. What I learned here meanwhile about the WP-rules for band, that I've read of course, before I wrote the article, that a collection of more than 150 press-articles is worthless, sources like the Austrian Press Agency are "not relieable" and a film, that won five awards, is "not noteable". Ok, that frustrating, and really not my understanding of scientific working, that I do for around 10 years now (outside of WP). Morrissey1976 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to comment here by Jytdog, although I do not know the reliability of the various sources in this field. I imagine I was asked to comment on whether technically meeting a list of requirements such as at NMUSIC is sufficient, because this point sometimes comes up with the somewhat analogous WP:PROF. . I think that it usually is, but not always, for we go by our judgment of the intent and spirit of the rules. Therefore, it is a matter of judgment,and we are entitled to form it for the circumstances of an individual article.
In particular, Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. I gather that the question of promotionalism and borderline notability is the specific point here DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I want to be thorough even if it doesn't matter at this juncture, so I researched a claim made earlier. The claim that the band is notable because it meets WP:BAND criterion 10 is supported by the statement that the film the band contributed music to (Little Alien) won an editing award at the Los Angeles Film Festival and is therefore notable. That is incorrect. According to the awards section of the article (and this award list for 2015), the LA Film Festival doesn't give technical awards for editing. Moreover, according to the film lineup for the 2010 LA Film Fest from the LA Times, Little Alien wasn't there. So I think that the "Los Angeles International Film Festival" claimed on the film's page is exactly that (not that I can find a source for it), and not the more famous one. MSJapan (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Ok, obviously the link to the LA Film Fest of the award for THE EDITING for 2010 is gone, that's a general problem of Links. But of course there are other sources, for example here [26]. The Austrian Cultural Forum is part of the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, but of course you'll suppose in your next reply, that this official goverment office of Austrian invited, constructed that and are "not right". Your problem is, that NO ONE is right, except you, in your opionion. Basically copied that from the german WP, simply added some info to the English WP, that was missing, which is in my opinion the meaning of WP. Obviously your personal meaning of WP, is to construct, invite or spin sources and references, so you "are right" and you are "smarter" than other people. I really don't know, how many hours your spending daily, just because you obviously can't stand, that you obviously "not right" or accept other opinions. "Gary Howard has never a worked with Alan Parsons". "Little Alien was not there at the LA Film Fest 2010". "Cornerstone was in the Charts because of the Charity, not because of the quality of their song". I haven't read such a heap of bullshit in all the years of scientific working, that you wrote here. If someone's shows you, that you'e not right, you spin every word around. That's exhausting, boring and - honestly - annoying. Get a life, dude! Talking to you is like talking to a robot or a trained ape... regardlessly, what someone will write or reply, you'll run your program. So keep going forward delete articles from WP, which is obvisouly your hobby and/or makes you happy. I'll stop discussing from here on, that's senseless. Ah, and don't forget to copy EVERY WORD I WROTE HERE in your "Users complaint", that you've already started, because an editor has the guts, to have another opinion than you. Case closed. Morrissey1976 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Morrissey1976, if you want to get the article deleted, making comments such as the above is the way to do it. I remind you of WP:NPA. DGG ( talk ) 12:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub or Delete Per Jytdog. Looked at the sources, and agree with his assessments. Darx9url (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just not enough coverage in RS to make them notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oh, what a mess... still, when the dust is settled, it looks like we have a group that's only slightly notable, and that's for a)a nasty intellectual copyright dispute and b)a briefly charting cover version of an 80s tune. Since we already have an article for their version of the song, the group really doesn't merit an article in my view. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The key to issue is that while this band has a single song which briefly charted, this is their only claim to fame. Simply not enough to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 O mark. History will remain intact due to the interest in merge and/or transwiki, whether and where to do so are editorial decisions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanamaru[edit]

Hanamaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable dict def, previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/💮 so this is in effect a second discussion. We don’t need a stub on every letter, character and symbol – that’s what Wiktionary is for JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either O mark or emoji. The rationale behind the previous AfD is still valid. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Emoji is not a reasonable merge target, as this is primarily a written mark. It is mentioned here. Closer would be fleuron (typography) but I suspect a Japanese speaker will be able to find enough sources for an article on this topic to stand on its own. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to O mark or transwiki to Wiktionary only if sources can be found to eliminate the possibility of original research: this topic would be better covered in another article or a dictionary because there isn't much to cover about the topic (see WP:NOPAGE § 3); this is pretty much original research in its current state. If someone can find sources describing the character and its use in praise, then cover it, but else, delete or redirect. Esquivalience t 03:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete: I could not find much discussion on the specific character. As-is, the page cannot stand on Wikipedia. No objection to keeping it if significant good sources talking about the character that aren't just dictionary definitions are found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm okay with transwiki to wiktionary. I'm also okay with keeping it. I'm hesitant to redirect it to emoji or to delete it. Note that the Japanese version of this article (Google translate) has more information. Note - I do not read Japanese. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wayne (TV series)[edit]

Bruce Wayne (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The TV series never materialized beyond a script. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cancelled TV series was very obviously notable, was going to star Ben Affleck, etc. Just because it got cancelled doesn't remove its notability. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The series is not notable for who it was going to star because that would be inherited notability. Now, WP:RPRGM indicates that a dropped pilot may be notable, not that it is, and it gives no criteria for determining such. However, this is not a dropped pilot - despite the wording in the article (lifted from the leaked script) referring to "shots" and character actions, this pilot was never filmed (emphasis because it's easy to miss that from the tone the article). Thus, we have an article about an Internet-leaked script, never filmed, not necessarily final, where all commentary on it is coming from third-party fandom, and notably not the directors, creators, or anyone else associated with the project. It is third parties making connections and statements, with nothing confirmed by official sources. Speaking of sources, the article has two main sources: IGN blog post snippets (not even full articles; much of the info is actually wrong in hindsight - lots of references to "Batman 5") and Kryptonsite (an unofficial DC TV fansite). These sources do not meet the appropriate level of coverage needed to assert notability, and without them, there's really nothing else substantial. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cancelled show still has been mentioned in many reliable, notable sources such as IGN. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although it was never filmed, it is nowadays pretty famous. So why should we delete it, when a lot of people are looking for the article?--Wikiolo (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is coverage in IGN and elsewhere which shows that even though cancelled, the series did attract enough attention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Spencer[edit]

Paul Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 04:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing good with this seeming to be the best thing. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another unsourced BLP, the two "refs" in the article are something vague off-line and MySpace Kraxler (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God Tech: Mark of the Beast[edit]

God Tech: Mark of the Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After an attempt to make the article suitable, no reliable sources can be found. A peer review has confirmed this. Samuel Tarling (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: Why is this article up for deletion again? I've only made a few updates and most of them are extra links to other pages. User:invisiblesword (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Invisiblesword: The problem is the lack of reliable sources to establish the notability of the book. Has the book received coverage in any respectable newspapers or magazines? All I'm seeing are primary sources, blogs and conspiracy theory websites. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Yes, there are respectable newspaper coverages. I will find them in the next couple of days. Please hold back from deleting for now. User:invisiblesword (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Would you accept a radio interview with East Dunbartonshire Radio? Its a mixcloud link unfortunately.
User:invisiblesword (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's not a great source, but it could offer an argument for notability if combined with other sources. It's certainly not enough on its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this movie is still in production cleared the strenous IMDB clearance process means there is something there, however it was a bit premature to create this article because of the lack of secondary sources. This article could hold validity, therefore I wouldn't delete, but as J milburn said, it definitely needs some more backing to stand beyond an intro period. I added a new page tag as this article is new. I might even suggest the creator moves it into their namespace until more sources are available.Shinerite (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some solid sources are forthcoming. If the subject becomes notable at a later date, the page can easily be recreated. We do not keep articles on the basis of possible future notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@J Milburn: I have newspaper sources but I'm waiting to hear back from them for a copy of the appropriate link. I ask that you let me keep the page for a few days while I obtain this information.
User:invisiblesword (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBOOK,WP:NFF not the subject of any significant coverage--Savonneux (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy. Right now there just aren't enough sources out there to show that this book would pass notability guidelines. The thing about films is that they really only count if they receive coverage in independent and reliable sources. A book does not gain automatic notability because a film was made and I can't see where the film has received the necessary coverage. Now if sources can be provided to show that the book is notable then it could possibly be restored at some point in time, but these sources would have to be pretty stellar. To be honest, I'm somewhat doubtful that this will pass notability guidelines or that the sources would really be all that usable since I didn't bring anything up in a search. This doesn't mean that they may not exist, but it's usually not the greatest sign when sources don't come up in a search and one of the biggest claims of notability is that it ranked highly on Amazon (which by the way is not something that would show notability on here). I've removed the merchant sources since those are extremely inappropriate on Wikipedia. The main purpose of Amazon (and other merchants) is to sell you something and putting them on Wikipedia can be seen as an endorsement of the site or the product. The primary source didn't back up the claims of it selling well on Amazon (not that this would be usable towards notability anyway) and it's also sort of a merchant link, so I've removed that as well. IMDb is not usable as a RS for several reasons, one of which is that it's at best a routine database listing. The CFD is not usable for notability purposes for the same reasons. I'm also going to clear out the "see also" section since those are all external links and some of them seem like they're purchase links - which again, is very inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have no problem with this being userfied, but it would have to be approved by the deleting admin (since it seems very likely this will be deleted) or go through WP:DRV before it should be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please don't post "related news". The Wikipedia article shoudl only be about the book/film. It is not a forum or WP:SOAPBOX for you to post related material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Solera Holdings. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Aquila[edit]

Tony Aquila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. There are 213 winners, not 1. Article is almost entirely composed of mino rpersonal details based only on his own say so. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably redirect to Solera followed my second choice delete as my searches found results to suggest he's best known for Solera here, here, here and here but there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as per nom and SwisterTwister. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CheckMarket[edit]

CheckMarket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good at all apart from non-significant results. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources used are either wp:primary sources, directory listings or blogs. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Weerasooriya[edit]

D. W. Weerasooriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is merely a doctor - all the references are just merely mentions of his existence, there is no evidence provided to establish notability in accordance WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. He exists, he practices medicine. He is not notable. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eiken Artois[edit]

Eiken Artois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This longtime stub is mostly about the demise of the brand. One sentence is about the beer itself, and four lines are about other products entirely. Doesn't clearly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Trivial mentions, nothing substantial. Onel5969 TT me 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropometric cosmetology[edit]

Anthropometric cosmetology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a recognized procedure, sources fail WP:MEDRS -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not a recognized procedure, as indicated in the initial text of this deletion (references are non-MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG due to little to no reliable source coverage of this topic. Everymorning talk 02:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the the terminology is strange, this is essentially an article on Soviet orthopedic and cosmetic surgery. the ruWP has substantially mroe references, and good aones at that. (And I point out that for the examples given in orthopedic surgery, the Soviets were in fact the pioneers, as they were for many other trauma-related techniques such as surgical stapling). DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you count youtube and the major Russian provider of said surgery as more reliable sources, sure they have better sources. But, no... -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...*Keep - here is an article in a popular science magazine "Chemistry and life". Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article can be improved with better references and seems to be a real medical procedure intended to correct orthopedic problems that can be troubling to adolescents. I am not sure about the references meeting MEDRS since the topic seems to be used by a treatment clinic and the physician that operates the 'clinic'. When I try to read the translated page, I am not able to understand exactly the procedures that are used, but it is notable since it is covered by at least one secondary source. I haven't been able to find the primary source yet.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Big K.R.I.T.[edit]

List of songs recorded by Big K.R.I.T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to Big K.R.I.T. discography. Koala15 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. theenjay36 12:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. List of recorded songs are not redundant to discographies. They serve two different purposes. The nominator fails to give guideline, policy or other reason why the list should be deleted.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: "List of songs..." and "... discography" articles are completely different in content, and one shouldn't be used as the others reasoning for deletion. If it were the case, lists like List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande would be deleted, instead of being granted featured list status. A large majority of the entries are not covered in the discography, and although the article is in dire state, the fact it's an unsourced article is not a viable reason for its deletion, merely a cry for help for a cleanup. Azealia911 talk 14:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Al Leem[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rashid Al Leem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio reads like a weak and rather pointless fan page. The man's name does appear in a few reliable and neutral third-party sources, but none of them establish adequate personal notability for a Wikipedia biography page. The page should be deleted. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: There are several reliable sources as that significantly cover the subject and establish the notability. the subject has also received the title by the prince that is a state honour award, and his interview also support and endorse the notability. I hope you will reconsider your nomination for deletion. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Justice007, I hope you are fine. Naturally I looked through the sources, and he is named in them, but the sources are not primarily about him, but about wider UAE projects and initiatives. His inclusion in some articles is almost tangential. I won't delete my nomination, but I will of course abide by whatever decision is reached. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As above mentioned sources in the Note, the subject passes the GNG and notability.Justice007 (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Interviews are not sufficient to support notability, and the remaining sources are scant at best. I don't see how the person passes even the WP:GNG to be honest; a handful of mentions in articles and an interview don't qualify as sustained, significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MezzoMezzo, I do not think you even have read the sources thoroughly that I mentioned. What does mean significantly coverage? He is this; he is that and so on. I am surprised.Justice007 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't search, we don't find, here are two more 1, 2 sources that establish the notability of the subject.Justice007 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources, and your comments aren't helpful. No, significant coverage is not established by passing mentions per WP:SIGCOV. What you've shown us is an interview (invalid for notability), his personal pages at a university and the company where he works, passing mentions and one actual mention. Sorry, but that's not significant coverage by a longshot, especially for the head of a utility company in one of the United Arab Emirates - that place is full of businessmen and heads of companies. Please learn to engage in discussion without attacking other editors, by the way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elbe & Sohn[edit]

Elbe & Sohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding anything to suggest improvement and better notability with the best results of my searches here, here and here (particularly this as everything else are the same results). I also noticed there's no German Wiki article and there's no good move target to another article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's very difficult to find adequate references for companies of this sort, that produce intermediate mechanical products for use by manufacturers of finished products. And that necessarily means that we're not goign to be able to cover them, as here. (I checked, and it's not in the German WP either) DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not find substantial depth of coverage in the sources, only routine announcements.[27] — Ben Ben (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently a specialized company that just does business and hasn't drawn any major media attention. No in-depth coverage (actually almost no coverage at all). I also looked for the subdivisions "Elbe Italia" and "Elso" with no success. SwisterTwister's fourth link has some brief mentions, but most of the article focusses on the plant, and the source is not really independent - not enough for notability. GermanJoe (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FSH Communications[edit]

FSH Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a rather obvious case of non-notability but rather than PRODing, I started this so users could comment. My searches found absolutely nothing good here, here, here and here. I'm not seeing a good target unless smerged to Qwest and it's interesting to note there's a a draft for WiMactel (started last August but not formally submitted for review). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently existed only from 2004 to 213, a/c the press release that's the only citation; no reason to think they were every notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rixos Al Nasr[edit]

Rixos Al Nasr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rixos al Nasr is no longer operational and is not listed on the official Rixos Hotels website Natalyamalysheva (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Simply a note, Natalyamalysheva, it helps to add a little more information to your nomination (such as performed searches or mentioning policies (WP:GNG, etc.) because simply that something is not operational anymore or mentioned at the website although may be valid sometimes, it simply helps to add a little more to the nom. My searches found nothing to suggest improvement and better notability with the best results here and here, it seemed to have gotten some coverage in August 2011 (including a LATimes) and with no good move target, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per SwisterTwister. Searches did not turn up anything which helps this meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jill Mansell, the book's author). Due to low participation even after re-listing, this should be considered similar to a "soft delete" with no prejudice to undoing the re-direct. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (Mansell novel)[edit]

Solo (Mansell novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable novel; I'm not finding substantial third party coverage for this title. The offered reference is about the author, and her personal preference in books -- not about this title. Some content in the topic is about "Fast Friends", another novel by this same author; not about "Solo", the apparently intended topic. Mikeblas (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect although my searches found nothing good at all apart from this and my second choice would've been delete but this saves the history. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I couldn't find anything. The Amazon page gives off the impression that the Sun reviewed it, but then it could just have easily have been one of those "praise for her work" type of sections. By large it looks like this is your typical early novel: it gets released and is largely ignored. The author goes on to become famous, but the early work is still largely skipped over in favor of the more recent stuff. If there are any sources out there the article can be restored, but I'm somewhat doubtful of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Muslim female medical doctor of Indo-Pakistan[edit]

First Muslim female medical doctor of Indo-Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. It is not clear from the sources provided that the claim that these two women were the first Muslim female medical doctors in Indo-Pakistan is verifiable, but even if it is, that is a very limited scope of accomplishment for which to claim notability. I'm the first Irish-American to form a non-profit outsourcing company in my hometown; shall I also get a Wikipedia article? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with the nom. The scope is so narrow that there's little that could be said about the actual subject in an article. It would better to have bios for the two doctors, and then note that they were the first Muslim female medical doctors of Indo-Pakistan in those articles. As proposed at the top of the article, this title could serve as a disambiguation page for the two bios.- MrX 14:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt there is sufficient source material to develop bios of either of the women individually. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoron[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cocoron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same deletion rationale as 2009. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no hits in a search of the Internet Archive's gaming magazine collection. The refs currently in the article are not reliable (see WP:VG/RS). The author's response was that "All officially released games get wiki pages and don't need to pass notability standards" but couldn't find where that was backed by policy or consensus (it isn't). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Unfortunately there's nothing to suggest independent notability or even minimal improvement with my searches finding some of the same results or nothing at all apart from this (at News). SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. All I found were blog reviews. shoy (reactions) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and above editors. Nothing to show independent notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Reschenthaler[edit]

Guy Reschenthaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion contested without reason provided. While not quite looking eligible for speedy, my concerns on the prod were "I can't find anywhere near enough material to make a full biography on this individual possible. What minor notability there is comes from one event". Those concerns remain. I can't find any more material than some brief and very local coverage on this individual based on a single event, the attempted state Senate run. I don't see near enough source material here to write a biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a host for political campaigns, unelected politicians' routine coverage doesn't usually count towards WP:NPOL, and he previously didn't pass WP:GNG. Either he or his opponent Heather Arnet will be notable after they win the election, but not before. The election is in November. Arnet's article should be nominated for deletion too, it was recently refbombed with her op-ed pieces in the local newspapers. Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unelected candidates for office, whether in a past election or a future one, do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — either you reliably source that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independently of their candidacy, or they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. But nothing else here suggests or sources any other substantive reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul[edit]

Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL with no references and insufficient coverage for an upcoming game. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per AdrianGamer's sources. I'm pretty sure I've seen more out there as well, I assume that even his lengthy list is just a sampling. Please be mindful of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the article is badly written there are enough valid references to create a proper article that will remove any WP:CRYSTAL issues.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, searches revealed enough sources to establish notability (see AdrianGamer's vote above). Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as CSD A7. Unambiguous advertising  Philg88 ♦talk 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RackBank[edit]

RackBank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. Saeed[edit]

A. Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources available about the person except blogs and a couple of websites affiliated to the party. He was the president of an unrecognized political party, but has not won any election to pass our SNG. This is the best source I have been able to find. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Story of Negation[edit]

A Story of Negation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, only coverage is database listings and forums, does not meet standards at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has an IMDB page as mentioned before, which of course is not enough in itself but it should be taken into account (as IMDB applies a selective process for adding a movie page). Furthermore, it meets other criteria, particularly the one that requires that "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema", which seems to be the case here (film entirely made by a sole person and first feature-film fully shot with an action camera). In addition, it seems to be the first film ever made by Connan, therefore the page could illustrate this accomplishment as a first piece of work made by a notable person. Justinlived (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. Justinlived, IMDb is a database, so it will list all kinds of films, including those that are not considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Notability is established by significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about the given topic. Also, notability is not inherited. IF the person is notable enough, then there should be coverage about the work produced. Connan's notability is not strong enough for this, and the person's general notability is potentially questionable. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated Tom Connan for deletion as seen here. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMDB does NOT list all kinds of films because it requires a minimum "general public interest", as the FAQ section of the site says [1]. Also, as stated above, it could meet the criteria that requires that "the film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema" due to its nature. Justinlived (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Justinlived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep It is clearly what I would call an "avant-garde" performance for an avant-garde artist. For that reason, this piece of art should be evaluated "on its own merits" according to the WP standards, which also state that an article is justified when the film "features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his career". Same remark as for the Tom Connan article: Wikipedia is not (only) a mainstream encyclopedia. (If it was, then lots of other pages should be deleted right away.) Josephduvignere (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Josephduvignere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As said above (by Josephduvignere), a page can be created if the film "features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his career", which seems to be the case here. Justinlived (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as while this statement is per guideline, it remains an unverifiable claim for this filmmaker. No sources have been offered to show Tom Connan (itself at AFD) as notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
alt year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
location:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleeligibility
  • Delete per above. I can't find where this film has received any coverage in reliable secondary sources. IMDb is not usable as a sign of notability as it's really not all that difficult for someone to get a film on their site - they just have to show proof that the film is made or going to be made. (I also have to bring up that people have used the site to perpetuate hoaxes, as we've had at least one instance where someone succeeded in creating a hoax profile and then tried to use that to back up claims on Wikipedia. Not saying that this is a hoax film, just using this as an example as to why Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP standards, when the film does not pass the "normal" tests, it may STILL be notable and should be evaluated on its own merits. In that case, other criteria can be applied and the film is eligible if it represents a "unique accomplishment in cinema" or "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person". Both criteria are met here. Josephduvignere (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps (and I am sympathetic), but Wikipedia's base policy requires that your assertion that it is a "unique accomplishment in cinema" or "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person" be verifiable in reliable soures, and those sources have not (yet) been offered. Sorry. And please, a number of brand new editors offering opinions here and at the other AFD give a sense of a sock or meat farm trying to save the unsavable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much what Schmidt said. What that guideline means for the most part is that a movie does not have to be your typical mainstream film (ie, Iron Man) in order to pass notability guidelines. However all films must show notability via coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspapers and the like. Please understand, you cannot just say that a film is notable without providing some sort of sourcing to back this up. No film is exempt to this guideline. I also have to echo Schmidt's comments on the amount of new accounts coming in: it gives off the impression that this is sockpuppetry, which is very easy to check for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches turned up nothing to suggest notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nasarudheen Elamaram[edit]

Nasarudheen Elamaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local leader of an unrecognized political party. He contested the last parliamentary election and received a little less than 6% of the votes. That's all I've found in reliable sources. I had BLP Prodded the article, but it was removed with this source, something that wouldn't pass our WP:RS criteria per the tag line of the website, or a reading of their About Us section which indicates that they are a non-profit org and do user submitted content. Delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regional organizers for political parties do not automatically pass WP:NPOL. They might earn inclusion if they're substantively the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — but that hasn't been demonstrated here, with the entire article resting on a single blurb in a single unreliable source. In addition, this is written very much like a campaign brochure rather than a proper encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SpacemanSpiff .Non notable local Politician fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three relists didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Meiselman[edit]

Moshe Meiselman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod template was removed from the article based on Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria number 6, which reads "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." I am not certain that Toras Moshe qualifies for that. According to its article, it has graduated over 1000 students since 1982. Firstly, it does not grant degrees to the best of my knowledge. Most yeshivos do not. I don't even think it is AARTS accredited, let alone Middle/Downstate. Furthermore, let us be generous and assume that 1500 students have studied there since 1982. That averages to less than 50 a year; I do not think that qualifies for a "major" institution. Compare that with the Mir, which has 5 times the total number (~7500) that number in any one year, or with R' Avrohom Yehoshua's Brisk, which despite being the direct spiritual descendant of Volozhin does not have its own article, or Ponevezh, which has given rise to many, if not most, of our gedolim in Eretz Yisrael in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, or even Mercaz HaRav, or KBY, which is over 10 times the size. Toras Moshe just does not compare. While the institution may or may not be worthy of an article (Wikipedia:Notability (schools) failed, so each school article must be discussed individually), I firmly believe it is not a major academic institution which confers notability on R' Meiselman. There are no other criteria which support the notability, so I believe the subject is not notable as per Wikipedia requirements, and the article should be deleted. Avi (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons described above. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I hear your argument, Avi, but according to your criteria, we would merit only a handful of yeshiva articles on Wikipedia, whereas dozens of secular colleges and universities easily qualify. Most yeshivas are not as big as Ponovezh or the Mir, period. Any yeshiva that has survived for over 30 years, without government support, is significant in the yeshiva world. Yeshivas cannot be evaluated on the same basis as degree-giving colleges; in fact, there is a clear systematic bias in the fact that yeshivas – and rabbis for that matter – are not covered in the relevant Wikipedia policy pages with their unique operating rules. Rabbi Meiselman is notable as a rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Toras Moshe per WP:PROF #6. I've had him on my watchlist for some time now, wanting to source the article for notability. I guess now is the time. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we will have to agree to disagree about the notability of Toras Moshe, and certainly, even if it in and of itself is notable, about its being major vis-a-vis its leader's notability. I agree that yeshivos should have a different standard, but I do not think Toras Moshe qualifies as a major academic institution regardless of the length of its existence. To me, current "major" institutions are more like Mir Yerushalayim, Mir Brooklyn, Ponovezh, MTJ, etc. Those which have a significant impact, be it through size, history, or some other reason. Toras Moshe is just one of many yeshivos in Eretz Yisrael catering to post beis-medrash Americans (and some British, IIRC). Even in that class, I do not think it has even a fraction of the impact of R' Tzvi Kushelefsky, let alone Mir, the various flavors of Brisk, or even the big hesder yeshivos (Gush, KBY, Shalavim). For that matter, I have relatives which have been Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel for over 30 years; I wouldn't dream of writing Wikipedia articles about them or their yeshivos just for reasons of longevity. In other words, "Bchol makum asher azkir es shemi" applies to limud haTorah, not Wikipedia . Now it is up to others to opine. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convoluted argument for deletion. He meets WP:BIO simply by the coverage he received in secondary sources. Bear in mind that most coverage will be in Hebrew language sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brewcrewer:, it seems you are relying on the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In your opinion, where is this suitable coverage? There is one Mishpacha article, yes. The blogs brought in the reference are not suitable sources in this regard (self-published and all). The OU pieces is a book review he wrote, which is certainly not independent of the subject. If you can demonstrate that he passes the general criterion, kol hakavod, but at this point, I do not think he does, and I think it clear that he doesn't pass criterion 6 of the academic notability requirement either. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mishpacha? blogs? See [35] & [36]. Bear in mind also WP:GLOBALWEIGHT and the most coverage will be in Hebrew language sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is papers or articles he wrote, not coverage of him, so that is not proof of notability. The second link just lists where he is mentioned. Most often, this appears to be in passing (he gave a hesped, he is quoted by someone else, etc.) . Once again, I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so he fails notability as respects Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines in this regard. -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I began cleaning up the article. In addition to serving as rosh yeshiva of Toras Moshe for over 30 years, he was also the founder and principal of Yeshiva University of Los Angeles. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biography, not an article on a yeshiva. It strikes me that this recommendation is therefore not germane. Carrite (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite:, no this is very germane. Yoninah's keep is dependent on the subject's being notable due to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria #6, which reads " The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." One of my arguments, agreed with by Agricola, is that Toras Moshe is not a "major academic institution" and so its leader is not ipso facto notable. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by GB fan under A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fitnes[edit]

Celebrity Fitnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a cut and paste of a borderline advertising article Celebrity Fitness about a non-notable corp. (Wasn't sure which speedy to use) Savonneux (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyShare[edit]

SurveyShare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case of a non-notable company (started by CEO who also added this to linking articles) and my searches found nothing good at all. Inviting tagger Stuartyeates for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable advert tagged as such for several years. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per two above. Absolutely no coverage available. Wikipedia is not a company directory. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KHarlles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KHarlles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This needs to be speedy deleted and salted. Was already deleted earlier today and it was re-created again a few hours later. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. There is no clear assertion of significance or importance; not every college athlete is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Richard Anderson[edit]

Riley Richard Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No external references, fails WP:ATHLETE. Also, from the creator's username, appears to be an autobiography. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 12:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Crutcher[edit]

Benjamin Crutcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Before I start this AfD, the lead sentence of this article is the best ever written on Wikipedia: "Benjamin Crutcher, originally from Illinois (home of the well-known sandwich chain Pot Belly's)"... Anyway, I digress - no external references found, completely fails WP:NN. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Brown-Bey[edit]

Eric Brown-Bey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Brown-Bey. Equally as non-notable, CSD removed multiple times. Author is also a known sockmaster. Requesting a salting as well to match other article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Ibn Al Huwaireth[edit]

Othman Ibn Al Huwaireth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All my searches found absolutely nothing aside from this possible mention ("Uthman ibn Al-Huwaireth was able to meet the Byzantine Emperor and became a Christian. He apparently enjoyed a good..." and ""...there were others here and there in Arabia, but little is known of them. These four were better known because they were Makkans. Moreover, they..." (this even says there's not much known about him) which looks promising but there's no further content available. The article has been rather untouched and offers no Arabic name thus with no possible improvement, I'm not seeing anything to convince keeping (and it's worth noting the article has only ever gotten as much as 3 views it seems, thus passers-by). SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from Delete) no claim of notability in the article, no sources, no coverage, fails WP:V Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amended, see below. Kraxler (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amended again. Looks good now. Judging from the citations, he seems to have gained a place in History. Kraxler (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete - not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) change, due to improvements/changes made; with that said, it still needs additional work and notoriety still is not strong. Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek The article has changed, would you like to amend your vote? SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amended above. Kierzek (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to 'Uthman ibn al-Huwayrith. I count around 20 book sources that mention him, so I'm assuming he's notable. He seems most notable for an incident in 590 in which he tried to install himself as king of Mecca under the protection of the Byzantines: [37], [38], [39]. I also happen to own a book reference in which ibn al-Huwayrith is mentioned as one of the three or four members of the Quraysh tribe who rebelled against idol worship in favor of Christianity. I'll try and improve the article when I get some spare time. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning that there are a lot of Arabic-language books and websites that mention him: [40]. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The listed sources are hopeful and please feel free to improve it, because this article certainly needs improving. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding sources, and the correct spelling, but what exactly is his claim to fame? The book sources are a bit nebulous. I'll wait, and see the improvement. Kraxler (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've updated the page with some of the sources I've found. Needless to say, there are a lot of gaps in the information since a lot of the English sources are snippet-view books and I can't make any sense of most of the Arabic sources. As to why I believe he is notable - if my understanding is correct, he meets WP:BASIC by a long shot. His exact significance is hard to state, there is no smoking gun. He was a poet; he was one of the first monotheists in the Quraysh tribe (the ruling tribe of Mecca and also Muhammad's tribe); he attempted to usurp control of Mecca with the help of Byzantines in what is unanimously described as a notable incident in the books I have read; and he was described by Islamic historians as being one of a handful of Christians who lived in the Hejaz during Muhammad's time. He doesn't seem all that notable, but at least notable enough for an article. Elspamo4 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be notable. Alternative spellings are always a problem with people from the Middle East even today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely keep - It has certainly changed but I suppose I'll keep it open if anyone else wants to comment for now. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable with recent additions to article.--Staberinde (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 03:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duff's Brooklyn[edit]

Duff's Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sure it's known locally but I'm not seeing much good to suggest improvement and better notability (best of my searches here, here and here (note that NYPress was extremely slow to load so I was unable to look at all articles). In total, I searched News, Books, Newspapers Archive (twice with both names), browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary along with NYDailyNews, NYPost, NYPress and NTimes. I'm also not seeing an obviously good move target. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncertain local organizations in NYC can be a problem in applying LOCAL. I tend to be skeptical, but their web site [46] lists enough awards that they might be notable. I can't judge in this field. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Oakshade. I think the sources he listed obviously establish notability, and that the article shouldn't be deleted just because of its current state if sources exist that are strong. Village Voice and New York Magazine are titan-sized sources. Nomader (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New York City has a larger population than Israel and Switzerland, and many of these “local” sources have a national readership. While businesses that only get coverage in local press are rarely notable, I think the bar is an exception to this rule due to the absolutely leviathan size of what is considered local and the wide scope of the sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishu Sabbir (actor)[edit]

Mishu Sabbir (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP that fails notability. The only source is an unreliable blog. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to [47] (in Bengali) he has appeared in over 150 shows (mostly tv, some plays as a student, and at least three movies). His prodigious output means there are many trivial mentions of him in cast lists, which makes it difficult to isolate substantive pieces that would count towards notability. The results of searching the Bangladeshi entertainment news for his name in Bengali script seem better, but I will leave it to someone more proficient in the language to identify results that prove notability. Worldbruce (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several reliable sources in Bengali found. [48], [49], [50] - Arr4 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that there are enough sources to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Meets WP:BASIC (albeit weekly), based upon a source review, some of which involved using Google translate. North America1000 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Moon[edit]

Katharine Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:Bio pretty hard. No third party coverage of this person; and the only decent google hits are from the education facilities who employ her. The Undead Never Die (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -A search for "Katherine H.S. Moon" with Google , Google Books and Google Scholar reveals this author and academic has several pages of published books and articles, as well as secondary sources that include references, citations and reviews. ABF99 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the holder of a named professorship at Wellesley and another one at Brookings she passes WP:PROF#C5 twice over. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think enough sources have been found to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Bild Sexism[edit]

Stop Bild Sexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. WP:GNG Only two articles, both from Jan 22/23 Capitalismojo (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article in The Local and one from the Guardian. The Guardian is merely reporting the Locals story. From WP:ORG: "For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple." Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian followed No More Page 3 for years [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], the article on Stop Bild Sexism is a follow-up, they are not "merely reporting the Local's story". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Bild#Criticism The one bullet point there appears sufficient already. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Material sufficient for the bullet point in Bild, but not a stand-alone. Merge/redirect also acceptable. — James Cantor (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Bild per above (insufficient notability for a stand-alone article) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bild, barring the discovery of any new sources. It's not clear whether this passes GNG on its own, and essentially the whole article can comfortably fit in the criticism section of the paper's article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This will never, ever be notable enough to attain its own article. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Never, ever"? What, even until the world stops turning Burklemore1? Gosh. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logically yes, because who will reflect to this in a couple of years time? No one. I have seen petitions and Facebook posts attract more attention which never attain their own article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logically no, because without a crystal ball no one can say a campaign / person / anything else will never, ever be notable enough to attain its own article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge google shows little independent reporting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep - It looks like there are now 4 sources cited in the article that are specifically about this campaign. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep or merge - there are reliable sources there and this is notable. Ogress smash! 01:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a start article, and there seem to be adequate secondary sources: The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Local, The European, and the German Women's Council. Sarah (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually "The European" is written by the organization's leaders, it would not be considered "secondary", the German Womens Council is an advocacy group recapitulating the press release from Jan., again not solid secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German Women's Council supports the campaign; they're not just repeating a press release, just as the Guardian isn't simply copying The Local. These are separate, independent sources, and we would probably find more German sources if we had time to look. Sarah (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as non-notable. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per new sources. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bild#Criticism already has room for this in sufficient detail. The level of detail in this article violates WP:DUE and WP:SOAP as none of the other critics of Bild get this much detail. -- Callinus (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge As per Ogress Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've found a few more German sources:
  • Delete There are popular social media campaigns and hashtags popping up every day, most which get some kind of mention in the media as well since there are so many outlets. Even if this just pinched in to the notable side, it's likely to be a forgotten topic after a year or so, an example of recentism. To have some standards, only the most notable campaigns and hashtags should be kept like Black Lives Matter which is on a completely different scale. --Pudeo' 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are mostly interviews, self-published information and brief re-reports of the same campaign summary. WP:NOTNEWS requires enduring notability of a topic, but criticism of BILD journalism is as old as the BILD itself - this is just one campaign with temporary publicity among many. It should not be ignored, but it is already covered with all relevant details in the main article. GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has expanded significantly since the nomination and early votes. Unless we are saying German-language sources don't count, this easily meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The campaign has received coverage from its inception up through this summer, so it is also enduring. gobonobo + c 09:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added articles found by Andreas to further reading section. Pinging editors who have called for delete / merge in light of changes since nomination. Sammy1339 @Hisashiyarouin, James Cantor, Rhododendrites, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Burklemore1, Staszek Lem, Chess, Callinus, Pudeo, and GermanJoe: --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changing my merge vote as the new sources demonstrate that the subject passes GNG by a depressingly wide margin, and merging would create an awful mess. Kudos to those who put in a lot of effort on this article. Also @The Vintage Feminist: you can't ping someone by linking the talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know how to ping a user page when it's a red link. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinking will still send a ping. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the ping. Although the new articles are helpful, they still do not seem to be enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS. I still recommend delete/merge. — James Cantor (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
→ Weak keep Good work with the German sources, which I couldn't read into but the write-up appears fine. Still Cantor's worries also makes sense: Unless the campaign actually made some change, the notability is still rather unremarkable. I'm gonna be slightly more optimistic than him though, as things are still in progress, it appears.野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guilty Gear soundtracks[edit]

List of Guilty Gear soundtracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After postponing doing some work on this for a long time, I finally decided to add some info. However, just after I finished editing the OST for Guilty Gear X, I realized that all of the OSTs have more comprehensive information on their respective game pages! Unless people are willing to add track listings and info for the various arrange albums for Guilty Gear (most of them listed on Daisuke Ishiwatari's discography), I don't see the point in keeping this page around. Thoughts? Jotamide (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards a support but I'll think more about it. It's kind of complicated matter. I also started working on it some time ago. However, I noticed that this info could easily go in the main game articles. Nevertheless, articles like the Mana series have music information on their respective game pages (Final Fantasy Adventure#Music, Secret of Mana#Music) and also have a main page for the music. I'll not oppose it, though, because I don't think we have a comparable coverage for Guilty Gear and because of the current state of this list. What's your opinion, Jotamide, and others' opinion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's very little content beyond present beyond the tracklists, which don't really translate to meaning much in most video games, where song titles aren't prominently featured in the game, and as such, are just a list of names without any recognizability. I have no problem if someone wants to restart such an article someday, should there be enough sources and content to warrant a lot more prose, but as is, its better presented in the individual game articles (or series article.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Card Association[edit]

Greeting Card Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There was a merge proposal made in May 2014 which attracted no opinions, to Greeting card. I think this organisation isn't worth even a brief mention in that article. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Flowanda, SiobhanHansa and Mannanan51. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I accept that this article seems a bit slim and agree it needs heavily updated and developed and rewritten. I will happily do this if the article is kept. I do think there is a level of notability in this and feel it should be kept separate from the Greetings cards page. CDRL102 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, CDRL102. How do you think it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG? And thank you for your offer to work on it - if you add anything convincing here or improve the article to the point where it shows it does meet the guidelines, I'll happily change my vote, but so far you haven't backed up your opinion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable traders associations, no independent sources in the article, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure.. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Griffiths[edit]

Jeremy Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG or NBASEBALL John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also consensus to break this list down into a list of lists. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American houses[edit]

List of American houses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a completely arbitrary list. Pretty much the poster child for WP:Listcruft. Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say I understand the nomination at all. It only contains links to articles, and the intent seems to be complementary to Category:Houses in the United States. Probably best developed as a list of lists given how many articles on notable houses we likely have; the category is just a container for a well developed system of subcategories. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overhaul. This would be mighty unwieldy if it actually listed all the houses with articles. Probably best to break it down into a list of lists by state (as well as Puerto Rico, DC, etc.). Of course, this requires somebody to create 50+ lists to populate it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any problem with having this list per any WP policy. More easy to browse through to find something interesting than a category would be. In addition to other changes suggested it should be retitled "List of notable houses in the United States." Borock (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS, we don't include self-references like "notable" in list titles, a word that is really about WP criteria, not the content itself. And we don't need to have "notable" in the title to restrict a list to only notable entries, which is a common practice. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_19&oldid=1142626722"