Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Brandenburger

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

This is an article about a footballer who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. He has made an appearance in the Swiss Cup. However, since this was against a lower division club, and not one from another fully pro league, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 18:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leys

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim of notability under WP:NPOL. The highest office he's held is on a local school board, and the only other substantive thing here is that he was briefly a candidate in a party primary for a state senate election but didn't win the nomination. About half the sourcing here is primary or unreliable, further, while the legitimate reliable sourcing is exclusively local, and fails to nationalize sufficiently to demonstrate that he warrants coverage in an international encyclopedia. NPOL does not confer notability on school board officers or on unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, and the article does not make any real claim that he's notable for anything else besides that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is entirely correct. He fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there are some WP:RS that are not local.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to service to local school board, he was elected as an Alternate Delegate (and most votes in a huge Congressional district) for the 2012 Republican National Convention, which is a National Party office. Furthermore, a HighBeam search returns a result of 98 articles over a 15-year period which passes the threshold of widespread media coverage. Jeva178 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Convention delegate" is not something that passes our notability criteria for politicians. The president of the Republican Party gets over NPOL as a national party office, obviously — but every individual delegate or alternate delegate to the convention does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Congressional districts in the United States have roughly equal populations. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a "huge" Congressional district in this context. Alternate convention delegates are pretty much the opposite of notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty easy call, unelected politician if one tosses out the school board post. It's a pretty page, meant to be such because it is a political ad of sorts. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Murray

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

Non-notable person, "notable" solely as the subject of some wild conspiracy theories; fails per WP:ONEEVENT as well. Sourcing is crap, and she's not even notable in the wackosphere. Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe, as Murray is only discussed in reliable sources in the context of being Monroe's housekeeper in stories about Monroe's death. [1] [2] [3] Everymorning (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe. All material worthy of merging is already in the article and there is no reason to save history of fringe material credited to fringe sources. - Location (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is hardly crap. Review the references, please. Every important point has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - sorry if I was unclear. The sourcing is not to reliable sources. A well-formatted citation to a conspiracy-theory blog still does not meet WP:RS, instead serving as a warning of fringe content. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a non-notable person. The article is packed full of speculation, and is a coatrack for conspiracy theories, not a biography of a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coatrack - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a possible redirect. Not shown to be notable enough for a stand alone article. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, Murray's only claim to notability is that 'she knew something which she didn't tell anyone.' Go directly to delete, do not redirect, do not collect tin-foil hat. Rgr09 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references lack a whole lot of quality. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constanze Engelbrecht

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though she is little known among English speakers, she had a successful and varied career in German film and television. See her biography on German Wikipedia. This is the English encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was one of the best-known and busiest actresses on German TV in the 1980s and 1990s: of course she's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.16.160 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability guidelines by an absolute mile - not sure what nominator was thinking here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear indicia of notability, though it would be good if someone improved the article - it needs a lot of expansion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this nominated? An actor with 70 film credits is clearly notable. An actor that has pages created in 4 languages is more than likely to be notable. There are too many sources to even count on the web pointing to notability. Obviously the file could have been tagged for additional improvement, but marking it for deletion is not the proper way to do that. Even better would have been the improvement of the article by the nominator rather than trying to get someone else to improve the file. I have completed a full bio with citations. Her filmography still needs to be completed, but there is no doubt now, nor should there ever have been of whether she was notable. Quis separabit? should withdraw this as clearly the nomination was made in error. SusunW (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable famous German actress; already has some cites. Ogress _smash! 16:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Bunjaku

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

Player has not made a single appearance at a senior level (Derby County). Kő Cloch (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in a FIFA sanctioned international match therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kosovo is not a FIFA member; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the last afd, WP:NFOOTBALL was clarified to explicitly say that it only covers tier 1 international matches, meaning Kosovo's matches as a non-FIFA member do not qualify. More importnatnly, he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not !voting here this time around, but I do have to say (as this is by no means the first case I've seen from Kosovo) the FIFA and FPL argument is simply absurd. That notability "subguideline" (in fact an essay) needs an urgent update, as the list per se hasn't been updated in considerably long - disregarding reverted edits. That a football player from a FIFA member state such as the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, with a population of about 55000 (which by the way is probably not a fully professional player due to that precise fact), is inherently notable yet someone from Kosovo isn't, is frankly insulting. As for coverage, there is stuff like [4] and [5]. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is better to focus on quality footballer articles than to have an abundance of sub-quality and borderline ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played for national team of an independent nation in FIFA-approved match. It seems to be WP:BIAS to take advantage of the inherent bigoted position of some nations blocking this team from full recognition. This nation is 100 times more population than micronations that we accept without blinking. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kosovo is not a member of UEFA/FIFA, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ignoring the potential contentions around NFOOTY (though Kosovo aren't a member of FIFA, he doesn't meet that subject-specific guideline, so that's the end of that discussion), I'm just not seeing GNG. There's a lot of routine transfer talk. I'm struggling to find much in the way of indepth discussion of the player that does not come from a primary source. the two albanian language sources in the article return 404s for me, leaving the only thing I can see that might count as something approaching significant coverage being source 9 in the article. Can an albanian speaker provide any assistance in native language sources? Perhaps @Eni.Sukthi.Durres: or @PoshteMorriKuq: might be able to provide assistance? Fenix down (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If his GNG is not inherited by its belonging to a national team, it'll be difficult to otherwise decide it: he is clearly too young. The question is merely to decide whether Kosovo's national team is a national team or not. Some people say that in order to be a national team, it should belong to FIFA. Personally I find that position absurd because national teams existed before FIFA, but this is a community to which I belong for a very short time, so I'll respect its decisions, however I want to observe that the 2nd nomination had pretty much the same people discussing this footballer, and there was clearly no consensus. Since nothing has changed since for the position of Kosovo with UEFA/FIFA, why are we wasting time here? Why not discuss this at the WikiProject Football, come up with a resolution, and then proceed from there into taking to deletion footballers of Kosovo? PoshteMorriKuq (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What has FIFA membership got to do with this? I thought this was Wikipedia not FIFApedia / UEFApedia? Is FIFA that corrupt it has infiltrated Wikipedia? IJA (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY # 1 "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA...are notable. The notability of these is accepted..." The latter part means, that under this guideline, sources for passing GNG are dispensed with. So let's have a look at what is a Tier 1 International Match: The FIFA regulations say: "...a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of teams participating are the "A" Representative Teams of the Members concerned, or an International Match involving a Scratch Team." That means if the match is authorized by FIFA, and one team is a national team of a FIFA member they may play against a "scratch team" to satisfy the Tier 1 requirements. A "scratch team" is defined as a "team brought together on a one-off basis, containing active players registered with clubs playing in the highest division of a Member that are not affiliated to the same Member". IMO that includes a "national team" of an unrecognized nation that is made up, at least partially, by players playing in leagues in FIFA members. this source says "second international friendly match Fifa-sanctioned." this source says that the previous match against Haiti was "Kosovo's first match approved by the international governing body FIFA" See here for the Kosovo - FIFA agreement. Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A scratch team is defined as team brought together on a one-off basis, containing active players registered with clubs playing in the highest division of a Member that are not affiliated to the same Member. (Emphasis mine). The idea here is that a match between, for example, the English national team and a side consisting of the top foreign players in the Premier League would be tier 1, the qualifying criteria being that the side must be organised by a member association. You'll also note that the definition of tier 2 refers to matches against any other representative team. While Kosovo's matches are approved by FIFA, they are approved at tier 2 and therefore do not qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your understanding of what a "scratch team" may be is too narrow, but I concede that your interpretation is as likely as mine. The wording is not that easy to parse. "Any other representative team" means the youth divisions or other non-principal team of the members, not a non-member team, "representative team" is defined as representing a member, only. Kraxler (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no argument that this article fails WP:GNG. Since Kosovo isn't in FIFA or UEFA, it also fails WP:NFOOTY as other users have already stated. Spiderone 21:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA wanted to admit Kosovo. It's not necessary to be an independent nation or a sovereign country to be a member of FIFA (see Faroe Islands, Wales etc.). Kosovo wasn't admitted due to the objection by Serbia. Subsequently FIFA allowed and sanctioned international matches of Kosovo against any FIFA member. Football has nothing to do with politics, much to the contrary, we all remember Avery Brundage saying "The Games must go on", in spite of nuclear bombs, cold war or dead Isreali hostages. Kraxler (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if FIFA wanted or not to admit Kosovo, the friendly itself was a non-FIFA match. Thus, he's still failing WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari, and also G5, etc. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotist srihari

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

We have a little three-liner here supported by three references: one requires subscription, the second one is a dead link, and the third is in a language I have no knowledge about - could it be Telugo? I tried to find sources about subject, but I fail. Just half an hour ago, a YouTube video [6] which I assume is about subject, was uploaded. Can anybody help with establish notability here? Otherwise I'd say he does not meet WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:BLP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 08:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not find any source for Guinness book record claim written in article. If someone finds source for his Guinness book record claim then article should be kept. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 13:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like a Single-purpose account has been used to recreate an article using a slightly different name from one deleted in March 2015 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari after the subject of the article was found to be non-notable at discussion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the mean time the article has turned promotional. Well spotted, Drchriswilliams, it's the same guy. Could we have an admin close this and delete the article under G4? Would somebody file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte? The IPs are in the same same ranges as previously. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte to highlight the recent activity. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:38, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Snyders

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

Article contains no sources that indicate notability, and I'm unable to locate any, particularly those saying that he was the Chief Rabbi of Basel, Switzerland. I think his son Rabbi Benzion Snyders exists or existed according to a PDF [7]. TheGGoose (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and no claim to notability. No reason this should be on WP. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He would be notable if we could verify his position as Chief Rabbi of Basel, but after an extensive online search, I am unable to find anything about him except this eulogy from 1985 in German. There could be more German-language sources, but I am unable to translate them. The page name should probably be Jakob Snyders. Yoninah (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. I searched for sources in German but found none. Sandstein 09:17, 30 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 as a hoax, G3 by TomStar81. Non-admin close. shoy (reactions) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Angeline

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

No sources cited that indicate its existence. I'm unable to find a mention of this "submersible research centre in the Atlantic Ocean, some 500 km west of England in international waters, where it is meant to be permanently stationed." TheGGoose (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unsourced stub -- likely hoax. Quis separabit? 20:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I labeled this article as a place while picking an AFD category (P - Places and transportation), but the article's categories say this is a submarine (transportation?). Can the discussion's category get changed? TheGGoose (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. No references exist outside this article and mirrors. A few other thoughts:
- England is not a single point; 500 km west of many locations in England would be in Ireland, and an actual research station would likely specify coordinates or at least a distance from a specific location such as Plymouth, Swansea or Cork.
- The naming of a "submersible research centre" after a saint in an otherwise uninhabited (undersea) location seems unlikely.
- The use of wind turbines in a "submersible research centre" seems even more unlikely, as does a land reclamation project in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean rather than along a coastline. Calamondin12 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as you would think someone would've edited the article again but no, and my searches found absolutely nothing. I'm not all familiar with ocean research centre in the Atlantic Ocean but you would've found something even if primary and such. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 30 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Blake

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

I found no good results for this painter aside from here so at best this was a minor painter who was probably best known for one artpiece. With this sparsely edited article existing since May 2008, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging tagger Alansohn. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly not notable. I would not consider Grounds for Sculpture a major museum in the sense of WP:CREATIVE, and it normally takes multiple works in such museums, not just 1. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 00:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquiris Game Studio

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

Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tried searching using the WP:VG reliable and situational custom Google searches, plus a general Google search. The company certainly exists and is listed by BloombergBusiness, but coverage is limited to primary sources (especially press releases), unreliable sources like forums and user-submitted game databases, and trivial mentions as a developer of similarly non-notable games. Woodroar (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while this is written fairly nicely and neutrally (hence the weak), the sourcing needed to establish notability just doesn't seem to be there, as stated above. The sources to be found are promotional or too closely related to the subject. I even browsed through some Google Brazil search results to no avail.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually leaning more towards delete now, because it appears the editor who started the article may have a conflict of interest. A company shouldn't have an article until it can meet the notability requirements, and that shouldn't be affected by outside forces.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weaker Delete In contrast with the nominator, the studio has in fact made notable games, namely Horizon Chase. This, though is in contrast with the lack of significant coverage of the studio itself. Coverage such as this and a large variety of mentions in coverage of Horizon Chase helps, but it does not establish GNG passing notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak but delete for now as this may have potential and may get better coverage later but my searches found nothing particularly good now with this, this and this being the best results. At best, I'd say draft 7 userfy for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haligonia.ca

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

Local web newspaper with no reliable source coverage to give it notability under WP:NMEDIA. As with any other class of topic, publications (online or otherwise) do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, but must be the subject of coverage to become eligible for a Wikipedia article — however, this has been flagged for notability and referencing since 2009 with no improvement provided since. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as business promo. Quis separabit? 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. A8v (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. A8v (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than this and there has been not even minimal improvement since starting in December 2009. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkendo

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

Apparently non-notable martial art. Has a number of passing mentions, but the main sources all appear to be connected to Toshishiro Obata or his association. The Encyclopédie des arts martiaux de l'Extrême-Orient of Habersetzer and Habersetzer says of it merely that Obata " ... created the Shinkendo style". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as this seems as if it would be notable but my searches found no outstandingly good coverage here, here, here and here. As for moving elsewhere, I'm also not sure how notable Toshishiro Obata's article is. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was recently cut-down in size after copyvios were removed and now mirrors the information in the Obata article which I also question the notability of.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or significant independent coverage. Thought about suggesting a redirect to the Obata article, but I'm not sure that is notable either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this martial art. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anna Todd. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After book series

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

Book series with exactly one independent source [8] which is more about the author than the books, and I can't find any other sources. The article claims that the rights have been sold in many countries and that there's a Paramount movie in the making; I do find a couple of sources from a year ago talking about that, but it seems much WP:TOSOON to create an article based on that. There is an article about the author, Anna Todd, and this article could possible be changed into a redirect there, but to be honest I'm not sure there's sufficient notability for that article to stay, either. bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find zero reviews for the books in this series (or for any other books by this author). This is not terribly surprising since they are squarely in the romance genre. I also have serious doubts about the WP article for the author, again because of the lack of reviews in any, much less any reliable, sources. Not even Booklist and Kirkus, and on Amazon there are only fan reviews, not "editorial reviews," which section Amazon fills up with excerpts rather than leave it blank. LaMona (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about that as well. Most of her coverage has just been people reporting on the fact that the books were picked up. I'm thinking that this could probably be merged and redirected into the main article for One Direction, possibly in a section about its fanbase or in a section all its own? I'd say that it's likely worth mentioning somewhere, but I don't see where it's notable enough to warrant its own entry. It's one of those fanfic series that got picked up due to Fifty Shades being so popular, but it looks like the boom died off before this could really get any true coverage. It certainly doesn't need two articles, that's for certain. I'll try to merge this into the author's article and see if that'd be enough to salvage this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anna Todd. Notability for people is slightly easier to pass than NBOOK specifically and Todd just barely squeaks by. Jezebel reviewed the fanfiction (not the book version) so that's sort of a review, although it's not the strongest source out there. Basically while Todd has only ever worked on the After series, I think that in this situation it'd likely be easier to just have all of this present in the author's article since it'd be far easier to justify her passing GNG based on the sources than it would be for us to try to say that the series passed NBOOK. I know that sounds a bit backwards, but this is sort of the current situation with notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; if the author can produce any evidence, I will be happy to restore the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tokens The Animated Series

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

No sources or evidence that this show existed. Also, Academy Awards are for movies, not TV shows. Speedy removed by IP. Everymorning (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've searched and found basically nothing. I'm not saying this is a hoax, but if it isn't, it's so far off the radar that it doesn't even approach the requirements of WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although the author says it's not fabricated, there are simply no sources and even a simple browser finds nothing. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he's still putting effort into it after it's become almost-WP:SNOWballs-chance-in-hades-obvious that this article won't survive this AFD leads me to think there's something to this. As for the awards and such, yeah, I'm just not seeing it. But I don't think he's making up those episode summaries out of whole cloth. Then again, I've been wrong about suspected hoaxes in the past and no doubt I'll occasionally be wrong about them in the future. I did give him some advice on his talk page on the best way to stop a {{db-hoax}} speedy-delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The names of the characters and episodes are the same as the band's members and singles in this article. Seems like a joke article to me. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's real, it's borrowing from those that came before. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - I didn't know such shows existed. However, as I have also been unable to find anything, I'm leaning towards this being a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re:Hoax - I've left messages on the article talk page and the editor's talk page saying what he needs to do to avoid speedy-deletion (i.e. provide us a link or DVD-box-UPC-code or anything that will prove it's not a hoax). I've also left messages telling him how to avoid AFD deletion (i.e. provide reliable sources which demonstrate WP:N is met, assuming such sources exist), and suggesting that he look elsewhere to host his work if it is not suitable for Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 30 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 Procedural Keep see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Group

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

Fails WP:ORG. Most of the sources that comes in google search are about an indian compay of the same name Arr4 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:17, 29 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. No prejudice to recreation at a later date when notability can be established. Ping me for any content to be userfied. Jujutacular (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya De Mello

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election, sourced entirely to a YouTube video of a TEDx talk and press releases, announcing her wins of non-notable internal university student body awards, on the websites of the universities she was educated at — these are all primary sources which cannot confer notability, and no reliable source coverage has been shown. This is effectively just a campaign brochure, which demonstrates no reason why she would have qualified for a Wikipedia article before being named as an electoral candidate — but if you cannot adequately demonstrate that, then the candidate does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if she wins her seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this conversation and ensuring ongoing quality. I believe this is a worthy article, or else I would not have posted it in the first place. I will supplant some of the sources with one's of secondary nature, such as interviews, newspaper features, etc, to show that this individual - a veritable expert in human rights issues and community activist - may have a page. If there is too much information, I am not opposed to it being pared down significantly, especially with respect to student awards, etc, which do not speak to her general relevance. I will add reliable secondary sources and edit, but I think it is important to include political actors in the Canadian context, especially women of colour, to properly represent the Canadian political landscape and mosaic. Namtug (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, our notability standards for politicians generally require that they have actually held a notable office. We don't give freebies to unelected candidates just because anyone likes their ideology, or because they belong to an underrepresented minority community — we have no institutional ideology, and are not a venue for public relations promotion of aspiring officeholders. We also don't confer notability on local community activists whose prominence is exclusively local to a single city — a person has to have a national profile to get over our notability standards for activists. You are correct that she might get over our notability standards for her human rights work, if she can be reliably sourced as having garnered substantive coverage for it — but nobody gets to claim an inclusion freebie just because they do important work, if the reliable sourcing isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely subscribe to your point of view, let me add some links bolstering the aforementioned qualities and if it is the prevailing viewpoint that the candidate does not yet warrant a page, I will fully adhere to the decision making process as set out. Namtug (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just cut some of the material and added more sources bolstering the De Mello's background in human rights work. Please let me know your thoughts. She is a person of importance in the Canadian context, hence the creation of this page. Namtug (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added one single source different from what was already there before — and that source isn't about her, but merely namechecks her existence as a participant in the thing which is the subject of the source. That's not what it takes to prove that she satisfies WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free host for election campaign advertising, no notability so far, no coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. I also adopt @Kraxler's well-thought rationale. Quis separabit? 21:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Records

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

There's nothing I can locate about the importance of Democracy Records. The only mention in a source is in this book "The 2-Tone Trail". TheGGoose (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization doesn't seem notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest convincing improvement with this being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Watts

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

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

Subject lacks sources that indicate significance or importance, at least in my efforts to find them. Also, this article might had been made under a COI, since the user page of the author includes a biography of him. TheGGoose (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this book authored by Watts for notability issues.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't assume it's a COI account just because of the content of the main user page. Back when the page was created, it wasn't uncommon for new editors to create drafts in their main user page. Since the main user page isn't supposed to be used for drafts, I've moved the page to User:Pumpkinsong/Rob Watts. By all rights I should request a WP:HISTMERGE but since nobody else edited it prior to it being copied into the main encyclopedia, it's not a legal necessity. I did put a "userspace draft" template on the now-moved draft. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot to say that the other articles this user created are also clues to a COI. One of the articles is The Sounds from Boston (mentioned above), said to be written by Watts, and another article according to the talk page (now deleted) was Ocean View Press founded by Watts. TheGGoose (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds more like either a fan-boy or a person who is following his nose and writing an article about a 2nd topic that he stumbled upon while he was writing the earlier article than a COI editor. Heck, if you look back at certain periods of my edit history you'll see me creating articles on related topics because I "followed my nose." On the other hand, a COI editor who was neither so much of a "professional paid wikipedia editor" that his "wiki-savvy-ness" allowed him to escape detection nor so much of a "professional marketer" that his "market-droid editing patterns" gave him away would be indistinguishable from a fan-boy editor. WP:AGF, especially about a long-gone editor no longer here to defend himself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nomination and my own lack of being able to find anything that would ~~confer~~demonstrate that either the author or the book meets any of Wikipedia's various notability criteria at this time. If credible, convincing evidence arises between the AFD closure and a deletion review that shows that this book or now or in the future meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, consider my recommendation to be summarily changed to "soft-delete, without prejudice against deletion" so it won't have any "weight in favor of keeping the page deleted" in the deletion-review discussion. If such evidence arises prior to this AFD close, {{ping}} me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published author (he publishes through his own press). No reviews found in the usual places. No evidence of books purchased by libraries. Nothing to satisfy notability as an author nor should any of his books be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per @LaMona (self-published author, COI-ridden article). Quis separabit? 21:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elenora Mason

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

No sources found to indicate this person's importance. There's none I can locate. TheGGoose (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable actress; joke of an article, really. Quis separabit? 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR WP:GNG no real WP:RS.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poem for your sprog

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and sourced almost entirely to Reddit posts and Twitter tweets with very little reliable source coverage: the only sources here that even begin to pass muster are a Harvard Political Review article which namechecks his existence a single time while failing to be about him, and a blurb on Vocativ which is about him but isn't nearly substantive enough to get a person into Wikipedia if it's the article's only legitimate source. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if his notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A somewhat amusing trend of writing for Reddit, but no more, and possibly less, notability than having a blog or sending out tweets. No sources that are not social media, with the exception of one name-check. LaMona (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest convincing improvement with only the same links listed here, found at browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the creator of this article, User:Barry Wickle, bless your anonymous heart. To the creator of Sprog, thank you for bringing a little harmless joy to all of us. To the editors commenting above, I know all of you from your work and you are sober, diligent people..., only, How can you bear to delete a Sprog? My only somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal is that we create a new template for: Articles too charming to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Film Studios

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

Article lacks references indicating the subject's significance. Much more detail that ever been in the article were in earlier revisions. Also, the company's was uploaded here as licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported while in the website where it might have been there first it wasn't licensed. TheGGoose (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the generic name doesn't make it easy to search for results but based from the now removed info and no overall improvement since starting in 2010, there wasn't even that much notable information before. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:ORG and lacking even an assertion of notability since this article was deconstructed. I then looked at the article history and found its website archived by the Wayback Machine is 2011. After that time, it appears the domain name became available and was used by an unrelated Japanese company. But I did find names of founder of 2011... apparently Giuseppe Pugliese and Peter Lufrano to expand searches:

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

...and in looking learned that the organization was likely fraudulent,[9] and the original Wikipedia article was probably created to further criminal activity. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Muhammad Yaqoob Baba

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, current citations either are not RS, are only mentions, or in the case of the tribuneindia source, do not appear to mention the subject. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, JSTOR and Highbeam reveal zero in support of his notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks to me as well that he's just not notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now as my searches found nothing better and simply some of the same listed links. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gerontology. Jujutacular (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme longevity tracking

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

There is no pin citations but nothing here that couldn't be merged into gerontology. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shields up, Mr. Chekov! All hands, brace for sockpuppets! EEng (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: We may have lucked out but can you offer an opinion on the actual AFD before the week ends? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this article and I believe that some of the previously deleted content should be restored since it doesn't really make any sense to delete an entire field of research that predates the term "gerontology" by three decades. 930310 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete/merge to Gerontology or Demography or Longevity. In an abundance of disclosure, I should point out that the article took its current form after I took the knife to it a few months ago (starting here [10]) to remove unreferenced material (much of which probably shouldn't be included even if it had references) and fancruft. After that there's almost nothing left. While certainly many disciplines are interested in good data on lifespans (and those with long ones), this article tries to make it sound like checking people's ages is an extensive discipline with its own literature, which it isn't. The best proof of that is that there was an editor here, now blocked, who certainly would have added cites to such literature if it existed. EEng (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I correct my own statement above re "best proof". The actual best proof that there's no such recognized field is Fiskje88's statement below that the phrase Extreme longevity tracking was made up by WP editors because this "recognized field" doesn't have a name. EEng (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It's fair to say that some of the prior material was indeed "fancruft", but not the material on the field of research itself. This is a field which has been in existence for at least 140 years (William Thoms establishing the basic premise of the need for age verification in the 1870s). Plenty of sources exist and the article can be expanded, which I will. And although this is arguably a "sub-field", Wikipedia can have articles on sub-fields. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That someone wrote a book 140 years ago on the problems of verifying ages doesn't make that a field, any more than Galton writing about intelligence [11] made that a field (or at least a notable one). What makes it a notable field is people talking about about it as a field. Where are those sources? EEng (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one book to cover this area as a field; in fact, William Thom's (the writer of the 140-year-old book) proposals were adopted by the Institute of Actuaries (based in London) in the 1890s, led by Thomas Emley Young at the time. This same Mr. Young wrote another book on the topic, which inspired others to continue writing about the topic for many more decades to come; even the New York Times covered this topic in 1909 [12], as evidenced by one of the sources in what has been left of the original Wikipedia entry [13]. Lastly, the existence of science conferences on the topic of extreme longevity tracking, such as [14], proves that the area of extreme longevity tracking certainly is a sub-field within demography (sharing overlap with the field of gerontology), instead of just a hobby. Fiskje88 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity (how old people get) is a notable topic, but the question here is whether verifying how old a given individual is is a distinct, notable subject. The subject of Young's book is longevity; he naturally debunks famous frauds and emphasizes the importance of skepticism, but that's not the subject of the book. The scientific conference whose program you link is the "10th Supercentenarian Conference"; it's about old people and how old they get, not the activity of figuring out how old they are (though of course there are items on the program related to that). The NYT piece is about trends in longevity, and mentions recent improvements in the quality of longevity statistics, but it's about longevity, not the process of keeping track of who's really old. EEng (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The extreme longeivty tracking is an interesting field of science, that may interest many Wikipedia users. There are plenty of international organizations, that study the phenomena, International Database on Longevity, Gerontology Research Group, Guinness World Records and other. Also, it can easily be learned from the article's history, that it has been severly affected by destructive edits done by user EEng, who now strongly approves the deletion/merging of the article. That is a proof in itself, that the user's edits were not justified and the user himself never acted in good faith. We must oppose the individual bias and work together to improve the stand alone article. There are many sources, which refer to scientific papers. Considering this, I am more than certain, that the article can be improved. Of course, it should be kept as stand-alone article. White Eaglet (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — White Eaglet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and improve Admittedly the article wasn't properly sourced in the past, yet there are enough reliable sources of note - see my additions and suggestions earlier in this discussion, for instance - to improve the Wikipedia entry and justify its existence. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete/merge to Longevity or Gerontology as this is clearly a subset of these areas and not a discipline in and of itself. There's nothing ~~here~~ to this subject beyond "recording the ages of the very old is part of studying population demographics. Validating the ages of the very old by verifying birth and death dates is important in record-keeping and studies because people lie about their age, and validating hard to do because most countries didn't have mandatory birth records until fairly recently." If this was a recognised field of study it would make sense to have its own article but since it isn't and there's next to nothing there, it's better included as part of another article (perhaps replacing Longevity#Long-lived_individuals?) Ca2james (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I suggest to improve this article. A lot of content have been deleted and/or changed over time and is not up to date.Petervermaelen (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve As Petervermaelen said above, a large amount of information has been removed from the article prior to this AfD being created. There are also various, reliable sources that can be added to this article, which in turn will lead to the expansion of the article. An example of a detailed, reliable source that can be added is this article [15] Bodgey5 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a profile of the GRG, which helps establish the notability of that organisation. It does not, however, discuss the field of Extreme Longevity Tracking and therefore does not establish its notability. Ca2james (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several keep !votes are calling for expanding the article. I looked but couldn't find reliable sources showing that the subject of the article is notable, let alone that the article could be expanded. Could someone please point me to the sources that establish notability of the article subject and can expand the article? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical with WP:SPA like that. They support keep and then never return to provide the sources. Saying that sources could be found is a very, very poor rationale to support keeping an article. I hope the closer evaluates the discussion as such and if someone in the future does provide the sources, they can always create a new draft article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see your point, I don't necessarily agree with it. (No, this is not a "typical SPA" answer. Read on! ;) ) The point is that extreme longevity tracking is notable as it is apparent in other fields of research as well and has been notable and "in business" for the past 140 years; should this article be deleted or merged, it would be a shame if the material deleted by EEng were gone. In 1919, for instance, Alexander Graham Bell - notable not only within the field of longevity, thereby showing that even notable people performed research in this area - had this article [16] published. Bell, in fact, had a "Genealogical Research Office" in Washington D.C., where people could register claims of longevity to be researched by the office. On top of that, the presence of researchers such as Bell and Thom proves that there is a multidisciplinary overlap for this field of research. Seeing that there is multidisciplinary overlap within the field as well as a need for scientific research in 1919 already shows to me that extreme longevity tracking is, in itself, notable and in my view establishes its notability. What would your definition of notability be?

Moreover, I would like to add that extreme longevity tracking/research is more than a simple "check of the documents"; there are, among others, also issues of sourcing, data completeness, demographic impact, results analysis, life span issues, and DNA testing. All of this research has continued to be a topic of study, with literature about it being produced on a steady basis. A simple google entry comes up with articles such as [17] (showing overlap with the field of biology), [18] (proving extreme longevity tracking is not a sub-domain of the GRG), and [19] (showing that research within the field of extreme longevity tracking is also described in journals and scientific articles). Fiskje88 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those sources discuss longevity which indicate that it is a notable subject but not one of them say anything about Extreme Longevity Tracking. Therefore, they cannot be used to indicate the notability of extreme longevity tracking and do not support your claim that the subject is notable. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one of the offered sources is entitled, "New Study Finds Extreme Longevity in White Sharks". Talk about straining! EEng (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straining is restricted to whale sharks, basking sharks and megamouth sharks (that's a real shark species apparently; not some schlok horror film title); this shark, swallow ya whole. Little shakin', little tenderizin', down you go. Belle (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Watch it or I'll Belle the cat again. EEng (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are seeking to find proof of the term 'Extreme Longevity Tracking' literally being used in articles/sources, yet please note that 'Extreme Longevity Tracking' was a compromise coined by Wikipedia editors as a name for this article; as a result, you won't find the exact same term in a plethora of sources - which doesn't mean that the field does not exist. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it actually does mean it doesn't exist. Recognized fields have names, so they can be... recognized. EEng (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)g[reply]

Ah, I see. The name was a compromise that cannot be found in a plethora of sources. That explains a lot. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I concede that I was too vague in my wording. Allow me to rephrase. As one can see from the edit history of the original article, see [20], and from the talk page of the article, see [21], one can see that the current name for the article, "extreme longevity tracking", was made by Wikipedia administrators (including Carcharoth) in 2007. As it combined the terms "supercentenarian tracking", which was used in European settings such as the Max Planck Institute, the phrase "extreme longevity" (as used in articles quoted elsewhere in this discussion) and "extreme longevity research," the title cannot be an example of WP:OR. On top of that, a phrase such as "validation of age extreme age claims", which ties in with this topic, was in existence even before Wikipedia existed and continues to be used in scholarly articles, as evidenced by - for example - [22]. As such, I do feel that the history of this field should be preserved somewhere on Wikipedia, (read this closely!) be it in either a standalone article OR a sub-article (known as a 'merge' over here). Should the vote ultimately go to 'merge', then Longevity would be the correct field for this article to be placed in, as some do not seem to understand that extreme longevity tracking is trying to scientifically determine the maximum human lifespan (which is not similar to documenting supercentenarians). Moreover, an article proving that there is a sub-field of research on supercentenarians would be [23], for instance. On top of that, the article is proof that there are organisations outside the GRG - in this case the IDL - which focus on the issue of extreme longevity tracking. Should you wish to have more proof of sources documenting extreme longevity research, please let me know. I'd be more than happy to provide them. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"extreme longevity tracking is trying to scientifically determine the maximum human lifespan" -- ridiculous, since passively if obsessively recording people's ages at death takes no account of the effect of medical advances and environmental changes, which obviously are critical. Research on longevity and gerontology grapples with extremely complex factors and interventions; longevity "tracking" is nothing more than fussy recordkeeping with nonsense emphasis on "champions", "incumbents", and "successors" who persevered a few weeks longer than the "runners up". There is absolutely no scientific value to these ultra-extremes. EEng (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to read your comment, EEng; I am trying to have a reasonable discussion here - note the word discussion, not even a positive vote for 'keep' - yet I have the feeling that your (seemingly biased?) mind had already been made up before this thread was started and that there is not even a chance at a fair discussion. If you throw in comments such as "longevity 'tracking' is nothing more than fussy recordkeeping with nonsense emphasis on 'champions', 'incumbents', and 'successors' who persevered a few weeks longer than the 'runners up'[,]" then you haven't even taken the trouble to take a fair look at all of the sources I have provided - nor do you even remotely grasp what longevity tracking is about. Longevity tracking is not done by "fans" who care about champions or successors; on the contrary, it is done by scientists trying to determine what factors enable or disable people from reaching their full potential. These scientists try to establish why people, on average, live longer now than they lived thirty years ago - or even a hundred years ago; compare the amount of verified, living 110+-year-olds today to the amount of living verified 110+-year-olds in 1915. Finding scientific evidence for the (seemingly) prolonged longevity of human beings is also what scientists publish about: [24] shows that Mrs. Van Andel-Schipper's blood proved that there is a limit to human life; [25] shows that in 2014 Mrs. Leutscher-de Vries' brains would be examined to research why some of the elderly do not develop dementia, whereas [26] is actively campaining to get 100+-year-olds not suffering from dementia to participate in dementia-research; lastly, [27] and [28] show that scientists try to uncover why people live longer in the so-called 'blue zones' - clearly research interested in environmental issues, not 'champions' or 'successors'. With all of this material and its scientific sources freely and publicly available, what could possibly make some people replying here still so easily, and in such a biased and blunt manner, brush off longevity tracking as yet another aspect of 'fancrufting'? Fiskje88 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mrs. VAS says that her autopsy "suggests" something, that "it seemed" such-and-such, and that Scientist X asks "Does that imply that there’s a limit to human life? Or can you get round that by [doing whatever]?” That from this you conclude that the article "proved that there is a limit to human life" is characteristic of the fuzzy thinking the imbues the WOP project.

Everything you're talking about comes under the subjects of longevity and gerontology. Insisting that there's something else called "extreme longevity tracking" is like saying that, in addition to the article Human height, there ought to be one called Measuring the heights of really tall people. It's stupid. EEng (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I notice that every page of the "bluezones" article you link [29] says, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.". Is that some kind of Supercentenarianspeak? Can you translate for us?[reply]

That would be Lorem ipsum text at a different starting point and rearranged a bit. Every one of those sources above shows the notability of Gerontology and Longevity as fields of study. They say nothing about the notability of extreme longevity tracking. It seems that longevity fans think that if longevity is notable, then longevity tracking must also be notable but this is not the case. Each field must be independently notable, and every single one of these links above has very clearly shown that extreme longevity tracking isn't notable in the slightest. Ca2james (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's Loren Ipsum, is it? I didn't realize. I think I knew him in high school. EEng (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2james, I appreciate your reply - I actually think the both of us somewhat agree, as you do argue that the sources provided should be reflected in an article *somewhere* on Wikipedia. Remember that a 'delete/merge' could also mean that all of the content of the original article would be deleted, and that's what I am trying to prevent. However, what I do not agree with is that "extreme longevity tracking isn't notable in the slightest" - that is a meiotic redundancy of all of the research done within the field. Let's agree to disagree. Fiskje88 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as an afterthought... EEng, I realise that the "fight" WOP-members are putting up must, at times, be frustrating for you (I even agree with you that some of the pages in the WOP project are completely unnecessary or much too extensive, surprise surprise!) - yet the way you react to and comment on us is uncalled for. Your demeaning terms to describe WOP members ("fuzzy thinking that imbues the WOP project", to mention the latest in a series of insults) and the strong language you use in your rationale ("ridiculous", as your last example, or how about the amount of sarcasm/cynicism in your posts) give me the impression that you are trying to bully your way through; you seem to forget that you are 'talking' to other real/live people who deserve more than being treated the way they are by you. As a grown-up, human being you must realise that you wouldn't want to be treated as such either. Once more, I definitely realise that, occasionally, we must be a frustrating bunch of (insert-strong-term-here) for you - yet that does not mean you can belittle us the way you are doing at times. It saddens me, as it makes me realise that Wikipedia is not what I thought it was: a community in which people can rationally hold a discussion with each other. Just my two cents. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge as proposed by EEng and Ca2james. Nothing puts this "field" apart from the main field of gerontology. --Randykitty (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Gerontology or Demography or Longevity. BMK (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect or selective Merge to gerontology and demography or longevity as appropriate. Basically what most others are saying above. Not enough sources to establish it as a notable field in its own right. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge selectively into Gerontology and Longevity, as appropriate. There's nothing special here to justify extreme longevity tracking as a separate article. It's not how a user would look for this information. David in DC (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per others above. The points made so far seem to indicate this isn't notable as a standalone article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 02:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Riders Technology

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

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This article has been written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) and representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All third party sources are notable from News Channel in India and other authority site. --Salman S. Shaikh (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It looks like all content are verifiable and providing a citation to a reliable source such as New channel in India. --PaulaEdwards (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does this fail WP:ORG, several of the references cited do not remotely say what the citations claim they do. This makes me very leery of the trustworthiness of the article as a whole. --Ashenai (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It does look like notable and verifiable and presented according to NPOV. --Raj Abraham (Isaac) (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) blocked as sock of Salamuddin.Shaikh89 Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users Salman S. Shaikh, PaulaEdwards and Raj Abraham (Isaac) appear to be WP:SOCK. Have very few edits and all three managed to vote in this AfD. I am raising a WP:SPI investigation against them. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, references that are clearly bad intentioned etc.--Savonneux (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - references like the KohraM article are not reliable, Kohram is a newly established "news and opinion" website. The referenced source article (ref #3, #8) fails basic journalistic standards and sounds more like a blog post (which it probably is). Ref #7 was written by a "mobile phone repair technician" (per author info). The article contains several exaggerated unverified claims and no reliable sources about a non-notable company (Google search found nothing interesting either). GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to speedy - per CSD G5, creation by a blocked user with no significant additions from others. GermanJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed A Naqvi

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

Article contains no indication of notability, just a man with a job and political aspirations. ~~When the AfC-process is allowing malformed articles like this in, something is seriously wrong.~~ The Banner talk 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the AfC was declined with the comment Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable person but launched anyway. The Banner talk 22:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a mess. Hardly need a reason in this case, but fails WP:GNG Curiocurio 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete no indication of notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing outstandingly good with this and this probably being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable per my searches and per what's in the article as of now. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Catholics

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

Nearly indiscriminate list with the potential of being overly long. The Banner talk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Violtates WP:LINKFARM Toffanin (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 80%+ of the 90 million+ Filipinos are Roman Catholics so this would only end up listing almost all Filipino people articles.--RioHondo (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTPEOPLE seems to not encourage lists based on religion alone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could potentially be too long to be of any use. Category:Filipino Roman Catholics already exists. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 10:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too exhaustive. That is why this article and articles such as "List of Saudi Arabian Muslims" or "List of Chinese Asians" shouldn't be made.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncompletable list based upon difficult-to-verify religious criterion. I am also not seeing encyclopedic purpose. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 World Championships in Athletics

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This event is still six years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The meet may be 6 years away, but just like an Olympic bid city, the location has gone through tha process and a site has been named. The article will only continue to grow, there is no chance of the article losing significance over time. Even if the bid is somehow revoked in the future, a disastrous scenario for Eugene, it will be major news having already gone to this point. This is permanently notable as of April 2015 when the site was named. Trackinfo (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional sources to those in the article are: [30] [31] [32] [33]. This will undoubtedly receive a large amount of news coverage in the future. If it's on the edge currently, it is overly bureaucratic to delete it only to bring it back in a few months or a year. Either way, I think it passes WP:GNG now based on substantial coverage in national reliable sources such as the NY Times. ~ Rob^Talk 13:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @WilliamJE:, I frankly couldn't tell whether you meant to be serious. Such events take years of planning, and the expenditure of vast sums of public money. And yet you can always count on some over-ethusiastic deletionist arguing for their deletion, improperly claiming the authority of WP:CRYSTAL. Even if an incredible disaster made it impossible for Eugene to host these games, and no other nation stepped forward, these games would still be worthy of an article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Pan American Games
- @Geo Swan:. First of all don't violate WP:CIVIL at AFD. Second of all, future sporting events have been deleted regularly. Here is one example[34], and noone was questioning whether F1 will still be around a decade later. More recently, 2022 Ryder Cup was deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season. Surely, if you wanted to be fair, you would have asked us to look at WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season (2nd nomination). Perhaps the reason you didn't is that the closing admin closed it as "keep", writing: "...the consensus seems to be that enough information is known to satisfy CRYSTAL." Isn't that really the fair comparison, for the current state of this article, where notable milestones -- like the choice of city, have already been documented?
    This point has been raised before, and you chose not to address it, so I am going to repeat that question again.
    Haven't notable milestones already been documented? Don't the inclusion of references that document notable milestones make WP:CRYSTAL completely irrelevant? Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @WilliamJE:, you cited the deletion outcome at WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season as a justification for the deletion of this article -- as if that article, and this article, were at the same stage of development.
      I requested that the deleted revisions be grafted to the beginning of 2014 Formula One season. An administrator did restore that history, and I think his comment is meaningful here Done, though I don't think it will help. The version deleted at AfD was a one-liner... So, just to spell things out -- the two articles aren't comparable, and I think your example has been proven totally irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference being that there was no coverage of the 2014 F1 season in 2010. There is substantial coverage of this event now. ~ Rob^Talk 15:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - I think two cycles into the future is about right for article creation for future championship events. The IAAF championships are biennial (i.e., are held every two years), and they alternate between outdoor world championships held in odd-numbered years, and indoor world championships held in even-numbered years. Are these AfDs being held now "frivolous and time-wasting" as suggested by Geo Swan above? No, not at all -- we just deleted a future events article for the 2032 Summer Olympics, and the Olympics are a heck of lot more significant on the world stage than the IAAF or FINA championships. We're simply going through the process of determining what's reasonable in terms of article creation for future sports events. The fundamental takeaway is that we should be very cautious about creating articles for events more than six to eight years in advance, and for world sports events below the Olympics there is not nearly the advance coverage that might justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article. If this AfD were for the 2023 IAAF championships, my !vote would be "delete" - WP:TOOSOON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 World Aquatics Championships

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This event is still six years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous and time-wasting AFD, since the article already documents notable events of the bidding, and city selection.
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Pan American Games Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in this year, the host will be selected. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - I think two cycles into the future is about right for article creation for future championship events. The FINA championships are biennial (i.e., are held every two years), and they alternate between long course world championships held in odd-numbered years, and short-course world championships held in even-numbered years. Are these AfDs being held now "frivolous and time-wasting" as suggested by Geo Swan above? No, not at all -- we just deleted a future events article for the 2032 Summer Olympics, and the Olympics are a heck of lot more significant on the world stage than the FINA or IAAF championships. We're simply going through the process of determining what's reasonable in terms of article creation for future sports events. The fundamental takeaway is that we should be very cautious about creating articles for events more than six to eight years in advance, and for world sports events below the Olympics there is not nearly the advance coverage that might justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of non-football clubs

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

As per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 11:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing:

Average attendances of football clubs
Average home attendances in non-European club football Spiderone 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom, WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No evidence that the chosen lists are notable e.g. are there sources out there specifically listing/ranking non-European teams? There are already other attendance articles that can/will include some of these details. Eldumpo (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. A8v (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I was considering submitting this to AfD myself. Natg 19 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. A hodgepodge of facts. JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

45 tha FEVA

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

Clearly does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO. No reliable sources found. Prod tag removed without explanation. Already been speedily deleted several times using slightly different titles AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not a directory of rappers. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable rapper, Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Salt this and other versions due to user conduct demonstrating they will continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support salt - That is a good idea. The editor has been trying to create this page since 2011. First as '45 THA FEVA.' then '45 tha feva.' and twice on the same day as 'CHASE6784/45 tha feva .' (with full stops) and also '45 tha feva' without a full stop. It's also clear the editor won't stop, as he is apparently doing this for commercial reasons, having previously stated he is the manager of this rapper. AusLondonder (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches reveal nothing to show the notability of this rapper. Regarding the "salt", this might be necessary, due to the editor ignoring wiki guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did some gnomish cleanup (fixing the references, external link templates). The MTV cite is almost entirely the same content as the wikipedia page (and lists the artist's official site as the wikipedia article). No mention of protoge status on MTV site. Being in a rap feud with annother rapper is not notable (everybody always has a beef with at least another rapper). Puffery language does not improve this article. Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 31 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. Speedy delete KW Estes as an advertisement. . Grand Daddy ... is less obviously so, and since it seems never to have been properly marked for AfD, should be renominated DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.W. Estes Mediceuticals

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

All my searches instantly found no good coverage or anything even slightly good to suggest keeping. NOTE: I'm also nominating Grand Daddy Purp Collective, Inc for which I found no good results. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 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. Speedy delete as an advertisement. Articles like this are best handled by CSD G11, preferably as soon as possible after they have been submitted. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Wood Securities

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

My searches found nothing but press releases and other non-useful links here, here, here, here and here thus with some appearingly minor awards and no improvement, there's not much to suggest keeping. I actually tagged in April 2012 and, with "MelyGWS" definitely suggesting it's someone from the company and I'm not sure about the author "roaming dutchman", there have hardly been any significant edits here. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. While this group might be a bit notable in terms of awards or something like that, I lean more to just deleting the article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:08, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HoboHut Network

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

Only google hits are first-party sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming you want sources? What do you mean by "Only google hits are first-party" Please explain .. Hazgrid (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. Writer is from a SPA that's unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines. @Hazgrid, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Hobohut is failing to meet the notability requirement to merit an encyclopedia entry. Come back in a few years after you've gotten some news coverage (on reliable and notable news outlets). -CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, why would a reliable news outlet report on another outlet that reports on the same thing as they do? Hazgrid (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a news outlet quote what another news outlet stated, saying that they both agree? Who knows, answer that yourself. We're not here to discuss journalism practices. That question has nothing to do with this AfD. @Other Reviewing Admin, its obvious Hazgrid doesn't understand Wikipedia's notability requirement. Take this into account when reviewing this case. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

haha @Hazgrid, you misinterpreted the quotation mark. To merit a wikipedia entry, a company will need coverage from news outlets that are reliable and notable. For it takes notability for an organization to merit a Wikipedia entry and for news outlets are organizations, we know that news outlets that have their own Wikipedia entry are reliable and notable. Therefore, get coverage on news outlets that have Wikipedia entries. If you get coverage from a news outlet that don't have its own Wikipedia entry, the outlet's notability would be up for dispute (unless you're a seasoned editor and know what you're doing, but you're not) and if its viewed that the coverage was on unreliable news outlets, the page can get deleted. Get it now? CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, use Article for Creation [35] instead of publishing straight from your sandbox. AfC was created to help new Wikipedians out.CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches obviously found no third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:ORG. The article itself tells us it was founded in a backyard in 2013, uses only Facebook to promote itself, and has only 3 employees. While the founder can be congratulated for his efforts, until his project gets actual coverage in reliable sources, it is simply TOO SOON for an article on Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. Article creator, please know that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Security Market in India and Major cities!

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

Does not state importance. Charlie the Pig (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this reads like some sort of trade show brochure, not an encyclopedia article. --Ashenai (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, WP:V, WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Djembayz (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnificent Marriage (1975)

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

Apart from the first line, it's entirely a plot summary which, unusually, seems to be WP:OR rather than a copyright violation. No sources. I would have speedy deleted this if it wasn't excluded because it's a book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a bit of research, it looks like the book has found some commercial success and been commented about on blogs, but it has never made enough of a splash to get notable reviews. To be frank, this is just another romantic drama novel out of the hundreds upon hundreds published in the U.S. in the last century, not being notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a possibility of archived sources but my searches found nothing convincingly good with this and this (maybe it's mentioned? Not easy to see) being the best results. Summarily, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Barbara_Cartland_bibliography#Single_titles_2. This looks like it's one of several hundred of books by this author, who is extremely, extremely well known for being ridiculously prolific. There's some merit to redirecting it to her bibliography page, as redirects are cheap, but I don't really see where this would merit its own page. However on the flip side, I can also see arguing for deletion since she has so many books - about 700+ in all - and I'm not sure that redirecting to that page would really be all that helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone really wants a redirect, go ahead, but I don't see the need Courcelles (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dabur Honitus

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

Does not state importance. Charlie the Pig (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is no place on WP for quackery and pseudo-science. Toffanin (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only reference is some sort of bot-generated financials page which isn't even about the product in question. --Ashenai (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unambiguous advertising.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 11:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination and Sachinvenga. Further: The article fails the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company article of Dabur. Larger conglomerates will have many such brands and we don't need to keep them individually. But redirect is cheap. Various brands (Tio Rico, Lever 2000, Organics (shampoo), Unilever Bestfoods, Thermasilk, Vinolia) are redirected to their company articles, List of Unilever brands or Unilever, in this example. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gutierrez

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

Meets WP:BLP1E. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not much aside from the news sources at that time and this was basically one event with no lasting and significant coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E and the event has no sustained coverage over time. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTTRUECRIME — Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Leaves

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

The only source is a book that only briefly mentions Bright Leaves. The only other reliable source I can find is this. Rimmel.Edits Talk 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some wikipedia history for our nominator. AFD is not intended for copy editing and article improvement. Even stubs, like this one, represent an considerable amount of work. Articles on notable topics should never be deleted just because, as the excellent essay WP:Arguments to Avoid says WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
The wikipedia is well over a decade old, and the criteria for inclusion are stricter now. When this article was started ten years ago we didn't even have the {{cite}} templates and the <ref></ref> html tag available for our references. Of the 400,000 articles that existed in 2005, when this article was written, there are lots of articles that have been kept up to date. And there are some, that, when given only a cursory glance, might look to someone impatient, like they could never measure up. But our deletion policy still says that deletion should be based on the notability of the topic, not on some contributor's opinion of the current state of the article. The wikipedia is not well served by deleting adequate articles on unquestionably notable topics, when they met the inclusion criteria current, when they were written, and merely need an update.
Our nominator wrote: "The only other reliable source I can find is this" -- and then offers a fine reference they found themselves. Our nominator's time would have been far better spent incorporating that reference into this article. Geo Swan (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geo Swan: I don't see anything that indicates the nominator suggests it be deleted "just because" or because it needs work. Nom is obviously looking at the notability of the article as a whole, which is why they went out to look for other sources. Whether that was a thorough job is another question. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ~~Keep~~ The director Ross McElwee is a professor of film-making at Harvard University, he is extremely highly regarded by those who study film. His work has been written about, in detail. This film, specifically, has been written about, in detail. Although our nominator asserted they couldn't find any references, the first item tossed up by google book search contained 'multiple entire chapters devoted to the film. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Rothman (2009). Three Documentary Filmmakers: Errol Morris, Ross McElwee, Jean Rouch. SUNY Press. pp. 2, 6, 64, 68, 69. 70, 72, 73–82, 97, 103–121. ISBN 9781438425160. Retrieved 2015-08-29.

- I am changing my !vote to Speedy Keep, since it premiered at Cannes, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in scholarly works, meaning that it sails through the notability criteria at WP:MOVIE. WP:MOVIE also says "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Here are links to reviews of the film by Roger Ebert, Todd McCarthy, Desson Thomson, Ella Taylor, Ty Burr, Carrie Rickey, Lou Lumenick, Kevin Thomas, Stephen Holden, David Sterritt, Michael Atkinson (writer), Stephen Hunter. Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep and close as the well-meant nominator badly missed the target in whatever his WP:BEFORE might have been. Heck, it was easy to find Metacritic lists 20 reviews in reliable sources, and even the "unreliable" IMDB offers links to multiple reviews. Wow. Per WP:NRVE, WP:NF is easily met. Sorry to have to point out the obvious, but this is a very bad nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massimiliano Cerchi

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

My searched found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better independent notability with the best results of all my searches here and, as an orphan, I'm not seeing a good move target for this article from February 2007. Pinging taggers @The JPS and Geniac:. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable film director. Quis separabit? 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable independent coverage to establish notability. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superdeterminism

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

This article is about some fringe concept of... I don't know what. The 'superdeterminism' concept is not, despite the article's claims, something that was discussed by John S. Bell, and opposed by Anton Zeilinger (they are talking about the 'normal' determinism) it is rather something only found in fringe/crank journals like the The General Science Journal (relativity deniers) and International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences, some obscure Pakistani journal of physics, whose website is setup to make it look like a legitimate journal of science through their own version of an 'impact factor', not the Thomson Reuters one. This is a non-notable fringe claim, which I think originates with some Manual S. Morales, backed by no/few independent reliable sources.

This also seems related to a recent edit war on the Higgs boson article by an WP:SPA (see [36]). An WP:SPI may also be in order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, I'm open to a redirect to Bell's theorem#Metaphysical aspects or Determinism#With free will, but we really don't have enough for a full article here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain relying on the enthusiastic physicists and hoping for the best. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ Not notable. The notable part of the content is covered in "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This concept is regularly discussed in the scientific discourse surrounding Bell's theorem. See for example most of the recent work by 't Hooft.T R 10:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, looking in "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by 't Hooft I see the word "superdeterminism" once in the abstract and then 1+3 times in Sect. 14.3 "Superdeterminism and Conspiracy" starting with:

"Superdeterminism may be defined to imply that not only all physical phenomena are declared to be direct consequences of physical laws that do not leave anything anywhere to chance (which we refer to as ‘determinism’), but it also emphasises that the observers themselves behave in accordance with the same laws. They also cannot perform any whimsical act without any cause in the near past as well as in the distant past. By itself, this statement is so obvious that little discussion would be required to justify it, but what makes it more special is that it makes a difference."

The rest of his text uses the term "determinism" (occurs about 120 times). Thus I am not convinced that he makes "superdeterminism" notable. Still, his position may well be noted in "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem", possibly mentioning the word "superdeterminism" there (as rather a synonym to "hard determinism" treated now in Determinism#With free will). (Really, it is mentioned already in Bell's theorem#Metaphysical aspects.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TR, that's regular determinism. If the laws of physics are deterministic, so is our behaviour. This certainly doesn't warrant its own article, and can be treated in Determinism or in Free will. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Superdeterminism" is a form of regular determinism. It mainly emphasizes that even if observers A and B are at a spacelike separation their choices may not be fully independent because they share a common (region of their) causal past. Bell's theorem (and the scientific method in general) assumes that A and B can make independent choices. 't Hooft's cellular automaton interpretation avoids Bell's theorem in exactly this way.T R 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Superdeterminism" seems to be used here as a kind of buzzword for concepts that are already described in other pages, as mentioned above, and I agree that this should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "fringe concept of I don't know what" sounds right. The article is written like an essay and does not cover a coherent, notable topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDs should be decided based on policy. "Superdeterminism" is covered in multiple reliable source from independent (and well respected) authors: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] This is clearly enough to establish notability under WP:GNG.T R 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough material to warrant its own article, a subsection of determinism is all that's needed here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "superdeterminism" specifically refers to a loophole in Bell's theorem (although with wider implications than that) if were to treated within another article Bell's theorem would be a much more logical choice. However, despite your statement, their is clearly enough source material in reliable source to base an article on. The six refs are just from the first few pages of a quick google scholar search. I'm pretty sure I've encounter discussion of the loophole in various books on Bell's theorem as well. It would take some more time to dig up though. (Time that I may not have, since I am facing a grant application deadline).T R 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, nice... Under WP:GNG, "Sources" should be secondary sources. All sources listed above are primary. Also: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Sources "2" and "6" above are from t Hooft, and "2" is "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" discussed before (on this page). And nevertheless, if TimothyRias will volunteer a sketch of a new "Superdeterminism" page based on these sources, with due proportion for t Hooft and Morales, :-) that could satisfy me. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well accept that journal article can act both as primary and secondary sources depending on the context. Typically, they should be treated as primary sources for the original work present in the article, but as for review previous results and relation to other work journal articles can act as secondary sources. (Most of the links I provided fall in the second category). For example, 't Hooft spends an entire section discussing superdeterminism, how it relates to his deterministic CA interpretation, and why it is not quite as preposteruous as you might intially think.

As for a sketch of the "Superdeterminism" page. The current lede is fairly OK (and sourced), and could function as a stub for the article. The section on Morales's work raises all sorts of red flags regarding undue weight and self-promotion. I suspect it should be axed (almost) completely. Based on other sources (for example in part the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder linked above) there maybe could be section about possible experimental tests. This should probably be proceeded by a section on the frequent criticism that superdeterminism would completely undermine realism and the scientific method.T R 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, may I hope that you'll implement your proposal? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we can use the articles by Hossenfelder and 't Hooft as sources to rewrite the article. Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains nothing useful, and the section on Morales is clearly inappropriate for a wikipedia entry 2.31.27.153 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superdeterminism is an important concept that is raised from time to time in discussions about determinism in quantum mechanics. It is important that Wikipedia has a well written article about this topic, it helps people interested in the foundations of physics to look up what the concept means. I have not carefully reviewed the article to see if it is acceptable as it is written now, but I don't think it is acceptable for Wikipedia to not have an article very specific about superdeterminism at all. It cannot be presented well in the determinism article, because that's primarily a philosophical article, while superdeterminsism is a far more rigorous physics topic, presenting this topic correctly is not going to work well in a not so technical philosophy article. When applying the usual rules leads to ambiguous results w.r.t. inclusion, you can also ask if an expert in the topic area would sound stupid if he/she doesn't know anything about it. Clearly, in that's the case here. You would expect someone in the field of the foundations of QM to actually have an opinion about this. Most strongly reject the notion of superdeterminism, but you would not expect a Prof. to not be able to answer a student's question about this loophole. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really, I am glad that two physicists, TimothyRias and Count Iblis, got interested in this article. Indeed, I was forced to write on the talk page there: "But it 'is within the scope of WikiProject Physics'; if physicists prefer to keep away from it, then delete this confusing template and feel no more responsible for the content of this article." Before that, I tried to raise the problem on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Superdeterminism, but got only two most negative replies: "ultra-windbag-ism" and "What nonsense. AfD'd". Once again, IF someone will volunteer a sketch of a new "Superdeterminism" page, with due proportion for t Hooft and Morales, :-) and more rich in content than the corresponding fragments of "Determinism" and "Bell's theorem", THEN probably I'll withdraw my "Delete" vote. OTHERWISE the vacuum of good content turns this buzzword into a crankery attractor, to be deleted. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:57, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hernandez

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet BASE/N or GNG, little hope it will. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen King

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

Canadian actress. I came across this hoping to create a dab and moving this to Helen King (actress). But having looked for sources, I haven't been able to find any for WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The sole article reference is her IMDB page. Fuebaey (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, there aren't a lot of sources. On the other, she has had three major speaking gigs, one in Potatoes and Dragons (for 78 episodes), one as a major role in the Prince of Persia game, and one in Magi-Nation (6 episodes, although the part in question is for Shimmer, which was 3 episodes). You're not really going to find a lot of sources for a voice actor since they're rarely the focus of media coverage, so in these cases we have to look at the parts to see if the media was notable and if the answer is yes, if the role/part was major enough. I'm leaning towards sort of a weak keep or a redirect to Potatoes and Dragons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources need some improvement, for sure, but she has served as a voice actress on several notable shows, and like the above commentator mentioned, on one for 78 episodes. I'm convinced of notability. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The problem is indeed finding sources. She has common names, voice actress, from Scotland, living in Canada. None of which are likely to produce a lot of hits. One will have to go in the "side door" so to speak and search for the shows she was in, as a straight up search of her name yields little. By searching shows, I have found [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. CBC seems to have very little coverage of their shows but Me Too! aired in both English and French per [48] and had at least 14 episodes per the writer [49]. Her body of work exhibits some notability as she would not keep being hired if her work were not solid. Wikipedia does not require that the sources be cited, but that they exist. It also does not require that she be famous, only notable and recognized. Clearly, if one were to take the time and document her participation in all of the shows she has been in, that would be significant proof of creation of a body of work and satisfactory to meet GNG. I added sources and removed the tag only sourced to IMdB. While the fountainhead source may not be entirely independent, it can be backed up with additional souring should one take the time to look. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable third-party sources demonstrate a solid media career. Article needs work, but topic is notable and article adequate to establish same. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Almoney

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

Based by the article's information, you would've expected better sources but my searches found nothing particularly good, here), here, here, here and here. There's not even anything of improvement for local notability and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable small college swim coach. Inadequate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:32, 29 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Mangeshkar

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

I found nothing to suggest improvement, notability and better sourcing (not even minimally) with my searches here, here, here and here. As an orphaned article, there has never been significant improvement and there's no good move target unless others wish to have her mentioned at one of family member articles. Notifying tagger @Falcon8765: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete as per nomination also it appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable; maybe a case of too soon. Quis separabit? 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hridaynath Mangeshkar. Multiple search results nominator included show that she has performed in stage shows. eg (Marathi) Post her album's release in 2009 she had been interviewed by a few newspapers too. And that's all in the English media and there would be much more in Marathi print media about her. Also, some NGO honoured her in their Women's Day celebration. Though fails WP:NARTIST, a redirect to her father's article is a good option for it looks like she might be searched. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Just a niece of the best-known singer is not a notability at all. Agreed with above assessment of User:SwisterTwister. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 12:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Veterinary Acupuncturists

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

Localized organization and, although I found a source saying it's the only group that "is the only veterinary association with a major interest in acupuncture", my searches found nothing good here (Books), here and here (republished PR in Coventry Evening Telegraph) and here (Scholar). Some of the Books sources say they have several affiliates but I'm not seeing a good move target for this orphaned article. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some reasonable coverage in books and also some basic news coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another professional association, only source is their own website, no coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only scientific literature mentioning Association of British Veterinary Acupuncturists is this paper published by the Journal of the British Veterinary Association (formerly a British Medical Journal publication) — Journal of BVA is a low-impact factor (see here) peer-reviewed magazine. The linked paper mentioning ABVA is authored by ABVA itself, so it's a self-promotional publication. The entire topic of veterinary acupuncture is a mixture of alternative medicine and fringe quackery. Toffanin (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trhermes (talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ano Ka Ba?

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

Doesn't seem like this charted. It also doesn't come up in third party sources when searched through google. Seemingly fails notability criterion at WP:MUSIC and WP:NSONG. The Undead Never Die (talk) 05:18, 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) 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Undead Never Die (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song or album. Quis separabit? 02:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 29 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 Travis (chimpanzee)#2009 attack. Jujutacular (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charla Nash

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the victim of a chimpanzee attack. This title has existed for six years as a redirect to our article about the chimpanzee (Travis (chimpanzee)), until being converted into a standalone biography yesterday — but per WP:BLP1E, we do not keep standalone articles about people who are notable for a single event. This impacts on the medical and personal privacy rights of a low-profile private citizen, as there's very little that actually can be written about her as a separate topic from the incident. And three references is not enough to claim that she warrants any kind of special treatment different from the way we would ordinarily handle any other comparable situation. I see that the article contains empty section headers for "Medical advances", "Legal battles" and "Legislative involvement" — if there really is anything encyclopedia-worthy that can be written about those things, substantively enough that it would constitute WP:UNDUE weight in the chimp's bio, then the appropriate solution would be an article titled and formatted as an incident article about the event (e.g. at 2009 chimpanzee attack, or some similar title which makes it clear that the event is the article's main topic). A full-on standalone biography of the victim, however, is not appropriate. Revert back to a redirect, without prejudice against the future creation of an incident article. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charla Nash has participated in media interviews, legal battles, testimony to Congress, and several other noteworthy events since the 2009 attack. I would support the reformatting of the article to no longer include it in BLP, I just don't think all this information regarding Charla Nash and her life since the attack belongs on the Travis (chimpanzee) page. Unlike the owner Sandy Herold, who has done nothing of note that was not -directly- regarding the attack. Her legal battles with the State and her legislative actions, as well as her involvement in medical research are of particular note. Those are actions she took that go beyond the specific event, and merit inclusion somewhere besides as a footnote to the attack on the bio of the chimp. Redirect to 2009 chimpanzee attack ChimpanzeeThat (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nash is notable for only one event, the attack by Travis (chimpanzee). Her role is adequately covered in that article. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom and User:WWGB. Well covered in Travis (chimpanzee). But good Lord what a horrible incident. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaker Khazaal

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

Searching for news articles in google (Search) results nothing but his self published blogs. Only Being a refugee does not make him notable. Arabian Business Magazine did not ranked him #1 #2 or not even #3 but #36. Therefore it does not make him notable. The website (top100arabs) that ranked him #10 in their list is not notable itself. His books also does not seem to be much notable no warrant their own articles. searching with the names of his books also results (Search) his self written blogs. Variation 25.2 (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least one recent editor, Aj0ob009 (talk · contribs), has stated he is an employee of Chaker Khazaal. Ogress _smash! 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Very borderline. Lots of different claims to notability: won an award from a university, was interviewed a number of times, including live on MSNBC, was on that top 100 list of Most Powerful Arabs Under 40, wrote a book trilogy. None of them appears to meet WP:N. I think it's close, but I don't quite see it. --Ashenai (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should not be deleted.Chaker Khazaal (verified user on Facebook www.facebook.com/ChakerKhazaalPage) has written three novels, appeared on numerous major interviews in America, and written articles that went viral. I don't work for him nor do I have conflict of interest. This whole attack on Chaker Khazaal has began since the release of his latest Huffington Post article that pissed some people off, WHERE IS FREEDOM OF HIS SPEECH?

Below are links that verify him as a NOTABLE person who made something out of nothing. #SupportChaker #BigFan

http://www.msnbc.com/road-map/watch/refugee-crisis-reaches-unprecedented-level-470588995511 (Interview on MSNBC)

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/in-the-middle-of-war-people-still-fall-in-love-have-big-dreams-and-hopes/5356a4b3fe344491ea000092 (Interview with HuffPost Live)

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/revealed-100-most-powerful-arabs-under-40-589647.html (He was chosen #36 in the World Powerful Arabs Under 40)

http://edm.com/articles/2015-04-28/garrix-talks-education-cyber-bullying (His famous interview with Martin Garrix)

http://www.mondanite.net/article/1187/meet-chateau-ksaras-brand-ambassador-mr-chaker-kha (Him appointed as brand ambassador for a big wine company in Lebanon)

http://20to30.com/profiles/chaker-khazaal/ (Interviews with him)

http://www.latalkradio.com/Max.php (Interview with LA Radio)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaker-khazaal/ (Huffington Post Page with all articles)

http://www.all4palestine.com/ModelDetails.aspx?gid=7&mid=5240&lang=en (Notable by this website as a Palestinian figure)

http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2015/august/huffpost-arabi.htm (Article mentioning Chaker’s latest article)

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/blogs/565738-huffington-post-distorts-muslim-brotherhood-connections--then-defends-them (Mentioning Chaker’s last article)

http://www.marocbuzz.com/ar/2015/02/23/بالصور-شاكر-خزعل-سفيراً-لنبيذ-لبناني/ (Arabic: about him being brand ambassador for wine)

http://www.kataranovels.com/novelist/شاكر-خزعل/ (Nomination for an Arabic Award)

http://alawda-pal.net/index.php?s=articles&cat=3&id=179 (Interview with Awda Network)

http://www.albawaba.com/ar/ترفيه/محمد-رحيم-600288

-— GlobalWikiCitizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 2 September 2015 (EST)

Keep Clearly a notable subject. Chaker Khazaal got enough media coverages for his works. --Khocon (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khocon, I agree; being 36th most powerful Arab under 40 in the World is an honor in addition to 3 novels he has written. I wish those criticizing and suggesting to delete can show us where THEY rank and what THEY have done :) Also, those suggesting to delete did not google Chaker's name in Arabic or check the links I mentioned above. Chaker Khazaal is an icon for young writer, journalists, and those who were born as refugees and made something out of life. --— GlobalWikiCitizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:02, 2 September 2015 (EST)

Note GlobalWikiCitizen is an SPA editing only on this page and AFD. - E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Familiar type in the author's AFD list: a Self-published novelist (trilogy of novels) who has gotten no reviews. He blogs for the Huffington Post, this, in itself, confers no more notability than blogging anywhere else. The one plausible claim is that he was named to a list of the "100 Most Powerful Arabs Under 40" on Arabian Business. the write-up states that, "He released his critically acclaimed novel Confessions of a War Child in 2013..." [50] but I cannot find an actual, published reference to his novels. It also describes him as a "reporter", but blogging for HuffPost is hardly that. Top-100 lists are as impressive as their publishers, I suppose. Although, "under forty" is the minor league even of such lists. Thing is, I had never heard of Arabian Business, so I looked them up - on Wikipedia! 5 of the 6 citations are to ITP Publishing Group. Never heard of ITP either. Turns out ITP owns Arabian Business. Is it a reliable source? I have no idea. (I just tagged that article for primary sourcing) Then I listened to the MSNBC interview. He sounds very young and repeats a very personal claim over and over, that he is a "refugee" because his grandparents were refugees. Lord bless him but hundreds of millions of people can say the same. He, however, is not a refugee but, apparently, a legal resident of Canada (where he was apparently originally admitted on a student visa) and of the U.S. I suppose we could all be interviewed on MSNBC as descendants of refugees. It would not make us notable. He is very active on social media, but in regard to reliably sourced evidence of notability, he is just another ambitious writer with a Wikipedia page supported only by a self-published fiction trilogy e-book that has been reviewed nowhere. Feel free to flag me if significant, reliable sources turn up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, delete. Apparent notability from links has demonstrably been shown to be circular references and non-notable content. Ogress _smash! 18:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, as per nom and editors above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Berg

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Benjaminady (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To wit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) requires " significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

BJU's Alumni Magazine "Voice of the Alumni" is not a secondary source, nor is BJU's own internet page about the net grace investigation, nor is "Biblical Viewpoint", a journal apparently published by BJU. None of these three are independent of the subject nor of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, doesn't appear to meet criteria under notability in academics, found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) One guesses that the argument would be that he meets criteria 1, and apart from other difficulties with this, this clearly isn't demonstrated by independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - common name but it doesn't appear subject of this article meets GNG. I would argue this Jim Berg is more notable [51] —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems odd to delete a 9-year-old article six months after the subject was criticized in a widely publicized report condemning his counseling techniques.--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Kraxler (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Coverage from an alumni magazine doesn't assert WP:NACADEMICS. Toffanin (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and the above editors. Searches revealed nothing (although they were difficult due to the common name) which meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, User:John Foxe's comment is quite a red flag. I think this merits a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the counseling "scandal" - as written up in this news article [52] - is much much stronger than appears in the WP article. I would say that if this article is to remain the full extent of the report needs at least to be cited. LaMona (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more quotations from the Greenville News article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link actually worked. However, Berg gets all of a paragraph in it, and the "personnel action" is against Bob Jones III, not Berg. There is a lot of institutional blame placed, but very little personal. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Columbia SC State, March 11, 2015 certainly gives Berg at least equal billing with Bob Jones III.

Keep Berg's position at the University, and public profile combine with coverage of the scandal to pass notability. As User:LaMona says, article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SENSATION "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering..." Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, the article has been here since 2006 because he is a prominent churchman and university official. The scandal simply adds a reason not to take it down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles from 2006 are deleted nowadays. Back then, I created my first articles without adding any sources, and nobody found fault with it. Tempora mutantur et mutamus in eis Kraxler (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually couldn't source the deanship to a non-personal source, but it's not a major university, so it doesn't matter anyway. Doesn't meet any other criteria, no independent coverage to meet GNG (despite being a dean for 20 years). As a note, the refs are a mess in general. The "scandal" (according to the report) was actually an internal policies and procedures self-review done in 2013, three years after Berg had retired. It was a general problem at the institution, not just one person. Thus, if it is to be written about, it belongs in the Bob Jones University article, not in a BLP. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Took me less than a minute to find this mention of Berg's position as Dean of Students in this 2014 Greenville News article: "They talked about feeling shame, depression, developing eating disorders because of the messages they heard in chapel, in classrooms, in dorm meetings, and most especially in counseling sessions with the man who was dean of students from 1981 until 2010, Jim Berg."--John Foxe (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenville News search on Berg: [53]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long-standing dean of school that draws media attention, string of books, gets invited to speak - I simply assumed that there would be sources. I was wrong. Long career, significant job, but I can find little, essentially nothing. The books sell, but they don't get reviewed or written about. He speaks at Christian conferences that only get written up on local church announcement pages. And then they are the sex things. A student, now trans, writes on a small website that he counseled her to trust Jesus, but she now feels - years later - that it was a repressive act. That sort of thing and church announcements are all I can find in searches limited to pre-2012. What we can source is his involvement in the scandal around allegedly bad counseling given at Bob Jones to students who reported sexual abuse. The problem is here: [54]. I did not follow this scandal and have not gone now to real all of the stories about it so correct me if I am wrong, but this July 2015 article says that: "Insufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob Jones University employees failed to report knowledge of criminal sexual conduct against juvenile students, the Greenville City Police Department said Monday." So what we are left with is a BLP about someone who has, as far as I can find, no sourceable notability apart form a single incident over which the authorities did not press charges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more references. Though I agree that Berg is non-notable as an academic, the combination of his long career as BJU Dean of Students, his numerous books (popular in fundamentalist circles), and his connection with the G.R.A.C.E. report make him notable as a totality.--John Foxe (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Viet Nam Continents

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - each event seems to merit sufficient coverage in Vietnamese sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you search? Searching on "Hoa hậu phu nhân người Việt thế giới" gave me about 14k hits, checking them left 112 unique hits. The Banner talk 13:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put that phrase in the article based on researching it. WP:BEFORE says you should have checked for foreign-language sources before nominating for deletion. If you didn't do that, how can you say it fails GNG? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I only got the 112 unique hits. "Miss Viet Nam Continents " gave me only 3450 hits (effective 110) and "Miss Vietnam Continents" 21700 (effective 104 hits). News gave me respectively 131, 5 and 10 hits. The Banner talk 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Searching on google.vn for "Hoa hậu phu nhân người Việt thế giới" shows a lot of news coverage on Vietnamese newspapers. The newspapers have multiple articles about the pageant, which suggests extensive coverage. Some of these newspapers are based in Viet Nam and refer to the pageant as "The American Vietnamese beauty pageant" which suggests the pageant has global notability as well. Meets GNG. -CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I did not read the sources (as I don't understand Vietnamese) but searching with "google.com.vn" just gives me 13500 hits, leaving 129 unique hits at the end. The Banner talk 10:21, 29 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simya hamdan

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

Non-notable singer. The only google hits that turn up are the generic mp3 hits and a few youtube links. No charts nor third party sources to confirm notability. The Undead Never Die (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like the nominator, I can't find any independent sources. Kolbasz (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found. 'Nuff said, 和DITOR E tails 03:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches revealed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Foresi

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

Seems to have a possible / strong conflict of interest going on here. No sources whatsoever; and it's written far from neutral. The Undead Never Die (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I think the article looks pretty bad at the moment, from searching for more information it appears as if Foresi was at least somewhat notable as a part of the Focolare Movement, which itself (puffery aside) has been newsworthy. It does need a major re-write, however, even if the sources to do so exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~Pure 100% copivio, probably must be deleted immediately, unless somebody feels like saving the article.~~ I went over and rewritten it. Still needs attention, though, it's just a stub. Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently, he's the co-founder of a movement with over 100,000 followers. To me, that seems inherently notable. --Ashenai (talk) 09:37, 29 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. Overall consensus to Keep, I've also removed the article that was pasted here and replaced with "<Removed article copied & pasted here>" - Adding references is fine but pasting the entire article is not!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Marchionda

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

He seems notable and somewhat known in his field but my searches found no further good sources aside from this, this and this so I hope further improvement can be made if possible. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While on the obscure side, it looks like he's been mentioned enough to be somewhat notable, but I feel on the fence about this. And that the article looks mediocre right now is a problem, but that's something that wouldn't be hard to fix. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'd like very much to contribute information on this artist but am very much a newbie here, please advise. I will provide information links below that might prove useful for more information; Please excuse if not properly added...

<Removed article copied & pasted here>

References

Gramophone Magazine - Sonatas by Domenico Scarlatti Arranged For Guitar - Review

International Record Review

http://www.sa-cd.net/search/marchionda

Isaac Albéniz - Piano Pieces Transcribed for Guitar - Classical Net Review

Isaac Albéniz - Piano Pieces Transcribed for Guitar - Audiophile Audition Review

The Faber Pocket Guide to Britten

Essential Britten: A Pocket Guide for the Britten Centenary

Gramophone - Volume 82, Issues 991-992

BBC Music Magazine

"Today Too" Sir Harrison Birtwistle

Songs For Tenor and Guitar - Chandos Records

Nicholas Maw at 70, Wigmore Hall, London - The Financial Times review

Complete Variations and Preludes by Manuel Maria Ponce - Sanctuary Records DEUTSCHLANDFUNK Radio review - Germany

Manuel María Ponce: A Bio-bibliography

http://www.savarez.fr/musiciens/stephen_marchionda.html (French)

Radio Nacional de España

WGBH Radio Boston

WQXR Concerts from The Frick Collection, New York City

BBC Radio 3 Lunchtime Concert Cheltenham Festival

External links

Official Page

http://www.shuppartists.com/shupp/artists/Marchionda.htm

Boxstrum (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (there was no need to copy the article here--the heading of this discussion gives the link) . Multiple mainstream reviewed recordings, reviewed performances. The original version was not persuasive, and it's good you were able to find the material. The references need to be properly integrated into the article, see WP:REFBEGIN, but the improper formatting is not a reason for deletion. And one other thing needs to be done: remove any adjectives of praise that cannot be directly referenced from a reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Sa

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

I'm nominating this again because my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing, notability and improvement aside from this and this (CMJ Music Reports). It seems she's well known for in the anime world but I'm not finding any good coverage so I hope others can help improve this if possible. I'm pinging the only still active editor from the first AfD, Acalamari for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, her only claim to notability (according to both the article and Google) appears to be a short Anime News Network interview. That's not nearly enough. Changing to Keep, see below. --Ashenai (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable singer in the English anime world who has appeared at multiple anime conventions from 2002-2009. Anime cons listing: [55], KMPH article: [56] She sang the English opening and closing themes for Suzuka. Interview by Animefringe [57] And she has been mentioned by Ain't It Cool News for various remixes [58] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are good sources (and ones I didn't find, thanks for adding them). Ain't It Cool News only has the barest mention of her, but I think the Animefringe interview, along with the Anime News Network one, qualifies her (barely) for WP:BASIC. Changing my !vote to Keep accordingly. --Ashenai (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Angus.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep By far not the strongest sourcing, but ANN and Animefringe are enough to keep. Esw01407 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John McKeever

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" are either single line entries, listing, or do even mention article subject. Lacks in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John McKeever has made various of television appearances. Plus, he is going to be starring as a main character in a legit show disturbed by Comedy Central. This gives him exposure to a large audience. It is 100% confirmed that we DO know he is going to have a large role in an upcoming mainstream series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComedyMan4 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with @reddogsix regarding lack of notability. Quis separabit? 06:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to invoke the hammer rule for a biography, or perhaps he sounds too up and coming, but it makes sense here. The web series for Comedy Central has not appeared yet, and the start date is not known. Am I missing something? The deletion is subject to later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Probably WP:CRYSTAL is a better reason. He's not notable yet. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Searches didn't turn up anything which would indicate his notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnagar College

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

I don't see how this meets notability guidelines. WP:NSCHOOL refers back to WP:ORG which states that there is no inherent notability. This is only sourced by the official site; and google searches turn up nothing in the 3rd party sources. The Undead Never Die (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unfortunately it seems to be notable. See WP:INDAFD — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've reorganized the contents of the article but still it require references but it does not mean that it is not notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it "unfortunate" that this College could be notable? AusLondonder (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited degree-awarding college per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Necrothesp. AusLondonder (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Kaan Bülbüloğlu

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

Second incarnation of a promotional article on someone who runs a media buying company, with no significant independent sources and plenty of peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's likely if there's any good coverage it's solely Turkish but my searches found absolutely nothing so it's unlikely any improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches failed to turn up anything which will meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The European Association for Banking and Financial History

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

Non-notable organization; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:ORG / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now but maybe delete for now if it can't be improved as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing in searches beyond those already mentioned. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hanrahan

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO - Not listed or credited at Allmusic and the only source is a dead link to an unreliable source Flat Out (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
1. AllMusic is not very good at listing/reviewing Australian artists. Its not a fair standard to apply non-appearance there compared with, say, an American artist not appearing there.
2. I've removed the urls from the Spencer et al. source. I also dispute the claim that this source is unreliable: can you substantiate this statement?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single source from "Who's Who" doesn't come close to meeting notability guidelines. Searches on News, Books, JSTOR and Highbeam turned up zero towards notability (they turn up stuff about other Hanrahans, but not this one). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yukiko Amano

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

It's not clear what she is notable for. ANN does not list her as a voice actor. Game Plaza Haruka does not show any entries. Is she under some other alias? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any non-minor roles, and no third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, so the basic notability guidelines do not appear to be satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. No evidence of notability per search engines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/move to State v. Driver and refactor/rewrite. Jujutacular (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driver hearing

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

Delete or maybe redirect to Preliminary hearing, sources are primary and cannot find significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Prod contested. Vrac (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with preliminary hearing, nor (unsurprisingly) is this state-specific term mentioned there. If New Jersey evidence law existed, it might potentially be merged there, or perhaps it should be refactored into an article on the State v. Driver case, but it's clearly a meaningful term and concept in NJ law and the complaints about the lack of "independent" sources are misplaced if not wholly inaccurate, given that the primary sources are clearly authoritative. Not to mention the fact that there are no doubt NJ legal practice guides that discuss it, as would be the case with any comparable legal doctrine in any state. I'm having trouble searching online (in part because the New Jersey Law Journal is behind a paywall), but any NJ practitioner, anyone with a Westlaw account, or access to a law library with NJ materials should be able to confirm that. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move - I like Postdlf's suggestion to refactored into an article on the State v. Driver case. I'm not convinced that the hearing itself is notable; however, it seems that the underlying case is, given that it added a new procedural step to New Jersey criminal law. It might make sense to move it to Driver v. State, and fashion it more as an article on the case itself (which would probably be pretty much a stub, to start, but that's okay), with details about the Driver hearing as a section, "further developments", or something like that. This is something like what happened with Giglio material, which was revised and moved (see [59]) to Giglio v. United States as a result of this AFD. TJRC (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humdah Khondokar Para

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND. The article says it's a village, although I believe Para is usually translated as neighborhood. Unable to locate it in the census table for Jhenaidah District, through GeoNames Search, on Google maps, on OpenStreetMaps, on any of the six upazila maps for Jhenaidah District, on hathitrust.org (e.g. British India gazetteers), in Banglapedia, or on the Bengali-language Wikipedia. Also tried transliteration variations, such as Khandaker Para, and tried my best guess at the name in Bengali script. Searches didn't find anything except wiki mirrors that mention it; nothing to prove it exists or is a legally recognized place. Worldbruce (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom. - Arr4 (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A search can't find that this place exists. Current article is unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Internacional del Café country rankings

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

fancruft, WP:OR, based on a pageant-related source, not independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 09:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:LISTCRUFT, unnecessary table with numbers that say near to nothing Kraxler (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Kraxler, pure and simple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagath Ramanayake

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

The article has been tagged for notability since February 2015. Only one reference has been provided - which is simply a mention in passing. The general references provided are also just passing mentions, which establish the subjects existence. There is no evidence to show the subject meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Essentially the subject is just a relatively successful businessman nothing else. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches on news, newspapers, highbeam and jstor did not reveal anything except some trival mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 29 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 merge to WESCO International. Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVC Communications

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

Clearly non-notable company for a Wiki article and my searches finding nothing good here, here and here. It has never received improvement and I see no signs of it and it appears speedy & PROD worthy but I took it here for comments. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain Some of its component companies seem to be leaders in the field, but its very difficult to find sourcing in this area. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now a subsidiary of WESCO International [60] last substantial edit was in 2011. 009o9 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In that case, there's an opportunity for a selective merge DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)`[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 29 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi

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

Basically original research with a questionable source (islamic-laws.com), blogspot and various Wikipedia links including a userpage. My searches (both this name and the "popular known" one) found absolutely nothing good aside from this which seems to be for someone else. Granted, if there are any good sources, they're non-English and offline and even a search with the Arabic name found nothing so with all that said, I'm not seeing a possibility of improvement and convincement of keeping; having a final look at the history, I noticed Faizhaider improved it (and I would ping him but it seems he's not very active) but aside from that, there hasn't been anything else. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the problems caused by cultural bias. I have no real way of judging the importance, but the presumption is that the author of multiple boos and Principal of a College is notable. The evidence though weak is sufficient if there is no contrary material. Iwould take a much more positive approach to this and similar articles if I could read the necessary languages, or even if it were feasible to use the various search engines and machine translators, but they do not work in this area.

There are two approaches that seem possible: one is to insist on roughly the same evidence that we would for English or American people, and defer the rest until we have sufficient qualified people to write the articles properly. The other is to accept notability that would seem to be similar to that which we accept from the areas we know better. At present, I'm willing to do this, except for BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 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 Invensys. Jujutacular (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avantis

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

Clearly not independently notable but (although I'm not seeing anything to support) a move to one of the mentioned companies (Schneider Electric or Invensys) with my searches finding particularly good here, here, here and here. Unfortunately the article reads more like a personal page and I'm not seeing any possible improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to (former) parent company Invensys. Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage, but as the company was formed in the 1980s, there may be offline print articles. I think Invensys is a better redirect target than Schneider Electric because it already has a section on Avantis, and while Invensys seems to have been a significant division of Avantis, Schneider is a huge multinational of which the former Invensys software is a negligible part. Dialectric (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Invensys as per nom and above editor. Nothing in my searches shows the notability of this company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia's oldest town

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

The article does not need a standalone page, per WP:NOPAGE. The articles is about a trivial state fact, and the information should instead be placed into other, more significant articles. There is a bit of info here, which should be added to the Shepherdstown, West Virginia and Romney, West Virginia articles, and this article deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, and there's nothing here that can't be covered in the articles on the two different towns that claim this status. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Fyddlestix. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add the information to the towns claiming the status and mention it in a sentence in the article on the state. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Makes much more sense to cover at the town articles, but delete rather than merge as the article is unsourced and I think it's bad practice to merge unsourced material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 31 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. G11, advertising, for PDQ . Laser Wash is less obvious, and should be renominated separately DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PDQ Manufacturing

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

Note I'm also nominating LaserWash as part of this one, all my searches found no good coverage and rather only PR here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. With no good coverage and this existing since June 2007, there' s nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two sources aren't usable, especially since one is it's own website. This article doesn't establish notability, either. WP is not a business directory/phone book. --Cagepanes (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

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

My searches found nothing good at all aside from various links with browser and, as an orphan, there's no good move target. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and this doesn't state why it's notable. WP is not a business directory. --Cagepanes (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm which just describes that it goes about its business. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing indicating notability; Google just returns the usual social media and listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 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. I am closing this as delete, per WP:TNT. As argued below, this rather hopeless article is "vanispam" or, at best, a beefed up CV. If the subject is notable and good sources exist, no prejudice against recreating a neutrally written and properly sourced article. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Park

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

Most of sources are primary sources. Reliable primary source does not enhance notablity. Press releases or contents in hompage of government agencies are primary sources, NOT secondary sources. Skirtland (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Filed the following report at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orient-Kor.--Namumania (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — regards, Revi 09:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This deletion request is submitted by two Sockpuppets of User:Unypoly with malicious intent. Moreover, Korean Wikipedia already made decision to reject this request by Sockpuppets of User:Unypoly( https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AD%EC%A0%9C_%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0/%EB%B0%95%ED%98%B8%EC%96%B8(2) ) and blocked the Sockpuppets (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90:%EB%82%B4%EB%95%85, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%8A%B9%EC%88%98:%EA%B8%B0%EC%97%AC/14.32.150.110 ). The Unypoly is globally blocked user in Wikipedia. Skirtland is already identified as one of sockpuppets of Unypoly https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Skirtland. Therefore, there is no doubt Skirtland is Unypoly. In addition, Namu means Namuwiki (나무위키) in Korea where Unypoly stalks Peter Park and other users such as RedMosQ, because Wikipedia Korea blocked or reported Unypoly to the police (https://www.facebook.com/AwesomePeterPark/posts/10203556684269263). Therefore, this mal-complaint shall be dismissed as Korean Wikipedia did. Orient-Kor (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Korean Wikipedia just ignored this suspicion because the informant seemed like Unypoly. Korean Wikipedia have never investigated this suspicion. Many peoples outside Korean Wikipedia now believe that this suspicion is true, because there is a conclusive evidence.--07:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skirtland (talk • contribs)

They also considered Unypoly's one sided allegations without proper evidence. I would like to express my regret that Peter Park is again recently selected by as New South Wales State Finalist, Young Manager of the Year, AIM Excellence Awards, Australian Institute of Management, Australia's largest professional body for managers. The National Winner of the award will be determined in October, 2015. "AIM Excellence Awards 2015 Finalists announced!" Australian Institute of Management, 20 August 2015]. Therefore, Mr Park's achievement is already recognized by not only Government of Korea and but also the AIM, Australian largest professional body, outside of Wikipedia. Your attempt with malice seems to be failed. Sorry but malicious complaint cannot change the facts Orient-Kor (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, Unypoly, please do not complaint about the detection, your another sockpuppet is now identified and blocked, through http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=dcwiki&no=89606&page=1 and http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=dcwiki&no=89601&page=1. Please note, I, Mr Lee and Park also carefully and occasionally check your bad and mal-complaint outside of Wikipedia Orient-Kor (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These outside evidences in Korean language shows this was maliciously made by the real sockpuppets against real people. Therefore, this article shall be closed asap. Orient-Kor (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mailzzang+aus and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unypoly.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice CV, but insufficient significant third-party RS coverage to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion was opened by UnyPoly, an infamous sockpuppet user. And there are some reliable third-party references in the article, so there should be no problem to keep this one. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note to closing admin - Subject of article has made garbled legal threats and has lost talk page access as a result. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ohnoitsjamie: Regarding your SPA tag and your edit summary about meat puppetry, I can easily understand why you would think that, but Shyoon1 is not a sock or meat puppet. He's a very experienced user at ko-wiki (see here) who was undoubtedly attracted to this page by the fact that Park is Korean.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispam. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and required to fix with much references for some no referenced paragraphs. This shows this person had cross vertified with Human Rights Awards and others such as the AIM. However some of it s contents is required to be fixed with much concise references from third party. EiAMCMaritime (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of Confirmed sock struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can be fixed, and the awards convince me of his notability, as well as his presidency of a major organization. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you take a close look at the "awards" mentioned, you'll see that the articles about the awards were all create by the same sock account, and that there is no evidence that those awards are notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This must be moved into Peter H Park, because I just added Peter J Park, Harvard Design School's Loeb Fellow, I now study. T. Peter Park an historian, a former librarian, and a prolific Fortean commentator on anomalous phenomena.Designhavd (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment Reducing too much and unnecessary information at the person's article. Nevertheless, I vote for keeping this article, as it can be fixed, and a references from AU organizations convince me of his notability. Designhavd (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references are enough to prove notability. Kwangmo (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically, This talk made by very notorious troller in Korean wikiwiki, SNS. Anyway, i also think the page should be keep. As it proved notability.--Altostratus (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no-no is a no-no. — regards, Revi 02:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability here. The page is like a compilation of every award and title he has ever received but they individually aren't notable, it just looks good piled together. The page reads more like someones beefed up resume, he might have gotten these awards, held these positions, but almost nothing seems to be said about him in these articles though. Peachywink (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability. For example, some missing news show he acted remakable outstanding role for making the Youth Identification Card in Korea, and also the Wikipedia article doesn't contain many his notable works such as Chungcheong Region Metro Railroad. [61], [62], [63]. [64]--Altostratus (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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