Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 December	14 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dixon (businessman)[edit]

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

Does not meet standards for notability Bigedits (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one independent reliable source (but lots of self-promotion) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Longtime troubled article with no signs of ever actually fully improving and there's nothing from the current article to suggest fully satisfying the applicable biography notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the rise of Buddhism in China and Japan[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for WP:OR since May 2013, and lacks any information not already discussed under History of Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, and Buddhism in Japan. Keahapana (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, and inherently so, unless one uses multiple reliable sources that all are about comparisons of Buddhism in China and Japan, none of which sources source this article. It is not that such sources don't exist, for example Nakamura, Hajime. 1991 Ways of thinking of eastern peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan. Motilal Banarsidass; De Bary, William Theodore, ed. 1969 The Buddhist Tradition: In India, China and Japan Vintage; and several others. But this essay by a SPA is not based on them. WP:TNT. --Bejnar (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur this is WP:OR. Article presents no merit whatsoever in content. Jun Kayama 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Belmont[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since he she has never played soccer above the US-collegiate level and not received significant coverage, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Belmont is a woman, just fyi. Joeykai (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article doesn't establish notability and there are no references given. it also contains some borderline WP:COPYVIO - some of this page appears to have been only slightly reworded. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per reasons given by others especially the copyvio concern Spiderone 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (CSD:A7 and G11) (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penchal Reddy[edit]

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

Extremely promotional with no indication of notability. No relevant Google News hits for either Penchal Reddy or his company. No independent coverage. Arguably G11 speedy deletion candidate. Since the images of Reddy and "his private jet" date, according to the metadata as well as the dates supplied on the Commons by User:Mr.Penchal, to January 3 of the year he founded his company, I'm calling it a hoax, too. Huon (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotional and with doubtful veracity. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as A7 & G11 as this seems applicable enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Harrow, Steep[edit]

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

I don't see any reason on why this pub should have its own article. It is a Grade II listed building, but so are many other pubs in England. I don't see what makes this significant or important enough to justify having its own article. A quick search isn't inspiring either, it just looks like an ordinary pub and is nowhere near notable enough to have its own article. JAGUAR 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Listed building with Historic England

On the national register of historic pub interiors

The Guardian: "One of Britain's timeless, rural watering holes"

The Daily Telegraph: "The Harrow at Steep is always in any saloon-bar symposium of great pubs"

Philafrenzy (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. There are dedicated articles specifically about this pub (and just this pub) in two national newspapers. In any event, no valid deletion rationale has been given. Edwardx (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources in the article indicating passing WP:GNG. Nice work Philafrenzy and Edwardx. The nom should understand no matter how "ordinary" a topic may seem after a brief look, it can still pass our notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade II listing doesn't automatically make a building notable, but it's an indication that it quite probably is, and with all the other things I think it surmounts the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did stop there about thirty years ago because my young daughter was thirsty. It looks a particularly ordinary, not very ancient, country pub. Notable perhaps for not being poshed up like so many. I am not sure a couple of writeups by national journalists who may have a local interest really confer notability.Charles (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WP:GEOFEAT says that all protected heritage buildings in every country are presumed to be notable. We haven't in the past applied this to every listed building in England (only to those with Grade I and II* listings), but maybe we should do given that it does seem to be applied to other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope you are not serious. There are hundreds of thousands of Grade II listed buildings in the UK, most of them quite ordinary houses or barns.Charles (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fully aware of that. However, note that there are currently 80,000 listings on the US National Register of Historic Places, in a country with a much shorter history of built heritage than the UK, and we already consider all of them to be notable and worthy of articles. The vast majority are of no greater notability than the average Grade II-listed building in England and many of them of considerably less notability. And again, why should WP:GEOFEAT not apply to the UK? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, and once the article is done it is relatively low maintenance as they don't die, win an election, or bring out a hit record. I agree, however, that we don't need an article for every individual listing. Many can be combined, e.g. a row of similar houses can be dealt with as one, or the subject can be dealt with inside another article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I would agree that on a street with a number of listed houses they should not all have individual articles, but the street itself probably should. Or a farm or industrial complex which has several listed buildings - the complex should have an article, but not every listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wonder how that will work with all the II listed primary schools that are redirected as non-notable. No. There are just too many listed buildings over here to contemplate articles on every group let alone every one. Ayway WP:GEOFEAT actually says Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. They are not inherently notable.Charles (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        In fact, any listed primary school that's proposed for deletion is kept as long as that listed status has been highlighted in the article or discussion. Can't remember one not being. You seem to have conveniently missed the first criterion on WP:GEOFEAT (I really can't imagine how you did, given you spotted the one beneath it): "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Kindly explain why that does not apply to listed buildings in England, given that, if nothing else, every listed building has a writeup beyond simple statistics on Historic England's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmlea Primary School for a listed building that was nominated last month, with a Speedy Keep result. Nominating articles for AfD creates a lot of work for other editors. It would be more considerate of others if nominators took the trouble to study WP:BEFORE first, so that AfD could focus on the genuinely debatable cases. Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I take the paragraph specifically on buildings as being the standard for buildings. The vague term "Artificial geographical features" is less specific and may include such things as artificial mounds. What you are saying is your interpretation of the guideline but it is not written there. "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" means more than a single listing in a very long list of protected buildings.Charles (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, a building is clearly an "artificial geographical feature" by any definition. What GEOFEAT is saying is that those listed as heritage features are presumed notable, but others that aren't listed may be notable depending on the circumstances. It's quite clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Absolutely correct. Heritage buildings are presumed notable and other artificial features may be if GNG is met. No doubt on the matter I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are correct it indicates that the guideline is US-centric. It is good that we are using some WP:COMMONSENSE in not blindly applying the guideline to the lowest type of listing in UK. WP:GNG is just as valid a guideline. Long may this continue.Charles (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KENNY SANDERS[edit]

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

Biography of an individual who does not appear to meet any of the relevant notability criteria, namely WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NCYCLING and WP:GNG. That false rumours circulated about the person a year ago does not make him notable; there are sources but they focus on the person who denied being in a relationship with Sanders, and there is no significant coverage of Sanders himself. bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to even suggest minimal general notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New links and few interview links are added which proves notability. Always :) 09:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep He is an entrepreneur & brand owner and new news links and interview links are introduced in the article. Always :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG - nothing of note in reliable sources. Even if he was dating a pop star, WP:NOTINHERITED would apply. Edwardx (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't inherit notability from Taylor Swift, nor from coverage of his firm.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no in-depth coverage in secondary RS. Citobun (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Part of a passel of questionable-at-best-faith noms by a now-indef'd editor. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya Serajeddini[edit]

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

This is a vanity article of a non notable nationalist. I cannot even find anything on Google news. Does not meet GNG. Hassan Rebell (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a source mentioning her, but she only comes up in passing.[1] Doesn't seem to be enough coverage to pass GNG. Brustopher (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let run a little longer We might want to let this discussion run a little longer than normal as the nom did not notify the article's creator (Vekoler) of its nomination . I have just now notified Vekoler. --Bejnar (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original references in external links have now been restored from archive data. The IP editor (Special:Contributions/81.62.246.169) who marked them dead failed to check the archives as suggest in the usage section of the {{Dead link}} template. --Bejnar (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Şan[edit]

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

Non notable. I cannot even find any CDs by this musician on Amazon.com. Does not meet GNG. Hassan Rebell (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this may simply need better Turkish attention but my searches found nothing better than a few Books and browsers links, one of which said she was "renowned". Unless this can be better improved, this is likely best deleted for now as there's not much to confirm the information here. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another bad faith nom from blocked editor. Amazon has his CDs[2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Мандичка; CDs easily found, nom banned for bad-faith nominations. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she really has achieved a legendary status as a quinessential Kurdish singer. Meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #7. --Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Kukkonen[edit]

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

The person this article is about is only known for being the first wife of actor Gregory Peck. In fact, the references provided in this article come from biographies about Peck's life. The article mentions her being the recipient of two awards, which might pass for WP:ANYBIO, but the information is unsourced, which fails WP:UNSOURCED. I have had trouble looking for information about this person; I could not even find an obituary. The article also fails WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing GNG. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also consider redirecting if needed as a likely search because there's nothing to suggest a better independently notable article here at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merziye Feriqi[edit]

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

Non notable. Article does not meet GNG. I cannot even find any CDs of this musician on Amazon.com. Nothing on Google News either. Hassan Rebell (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feature article on her on the 10th anniversary of her death in what seems to be a German Turkish news outlet, BestaNuce, there's a different piece on her at what appears to be a UK-based Turkish news site ANHA -- in fact, one sees multiple stories on her in what seems to be Turkish language Kurdish newsites, the challenge is determining which are duplications of wire stories. While Google News shows nothing, we are seeing multiple news items on Google Web Search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best unless a better article can be made as there has certainly been enough time and I'm simply not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per research by Shawn in Montreal -- coverage of a person's life ten years after a death is good evidence of notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article still needs improvement, and it would be nice if someone would add citations to those sources mentioned above to the article, but she seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO. --Bejnar (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Konwea[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in the Persian Gulf Cup. However, since he has not made his debut in that league, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet to make fully pro debut Spiderone 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Essays[edit]

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

non-notable, very poorly-written, much reliance on primary sources jftsang 17:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage for this company: BBC, Guardian (sort of in passing, almost a trivial source). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some searching I found that there was a brief flurry of coverage where the company was briefly mentioned along with two other companies as an example of their type, but the coverage was not entirely in depth. Aside from the two above, the only other two that are decent are the ones on the article, from the Sunday Times (paywalled) and the Telegraph. This really doesn't seem like enough to truly give a good depth of coverage, although I will say that the Guardian article was from 2006, the BBC from 2008, and the other two from 2010. The other mentioned coverage is from 2014, but the coverage is sort of in passing since the main focus was on covering students purchasing essays and raising awareness that they shouldn't do it. It's close, but I don't know that this is really heavy enough to warrant an article, as companies are expected to have more coverage than the average GNG article. If anyone can find anything better, I'm open to persuasion since this is fairly borderline for me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the best I also found was only this and this, I found nothing else and there's hardly much here to suggest better notability and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tokyogirl79 was researching sources, but six days have gone by and nothing has come up, so I'm going to call this a delete. If some solid sources appear, ping me on my talk page and if you can make a reasonable case, I'll reopen the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unwoman[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. While this artist has associations with other artists of note (like touring with them), notability is not inherited. The article has been tagged with notability concerns for 7 years; that's plenty of time to fix the problems. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pulling up enough commentary on the term "unwoman" as a whole to where this could probably merit its own article. (The term, not the performer. I'm still undecided on her.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how I lean here. I think that there's likely enough here to show enough for a weak keep, but the sourcing isn't the strongest. I'm going to ask around for some help looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches only found the exact currently listed coverage at News and browsers, local coverage and no other outstandingly convincing coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against rewriting. The discussion below showed that the subject probably has sufficient notability but the current state of the article is not fit for purpose. Please contact me (or any other admin) if you want the page history restored for redrafting. Der yck C. 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Maqsusi[edit]

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

I assume a lot of people feed the needy, but I don't think it's a criteria for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent any valid reason for deletion. The article's references appear to establish a reasonable case that the subject satisfies the GNG, and the nominator makes no argument otherwise. It's not necessary to meet an SNG if the subject meets the GNG. This is not the way to treat a good faith effort by an inexperienced editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)i[reply]

My reason for deletion is in nomination itself. As I wrote, I don't think hat establishing a kitchen for needy and feeding them using person's only small income as article says is the reason for encyclopedic article. It's definitely a good act, but we are not creating a story of good people here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" reliable sources is three, and we seem to have that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced these are 3 distinct sources. They seem like one article run three places with a few changes. They seem to tend to be from the local press as well. The process of creating this article seems to tend towards presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The subject does appear to be notable, but the current article contains nothing worth saving; it should be taken down until it's more comprehensible and less of a peacock-fest. Draftifying would also be a good option, if there's any realistic prospect of someone rewriting a decent article from those sources. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yes, there is a little bit of one source lifting from another, but there are also two articles from the same (presumably reliable) mainstream news source. And this is not a case of a single event, really; it is his work which is receiving attention, so keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11). No prejudice to a competent, neutral recreation that can then be examined again for notability. Sandstein 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL4 and WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Henzel[edit]

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

Delete: Czech-born Swedish actor of dubious notability. Quis separabit? 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Quis separabit? 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourced article, per notable roles in several films and series. He is also an established comedian. I do not see the dubious notability. Per WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain perhaps as I notice this may be keepable and the best my searches found was only one Variety review at Books but I also weigh deleting because there's simply hardly much and it shows at his IMDb. Certainly this will need familiar Swedish attention so perhaps Josve05a and Chiswick Chap can help here? SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I did look at it, and thought it was marginal both in interest and notability. However, since you ask, there are a couple of brief passing mentions in Norran, a regional newspaper. There's another brief mention in Eskilstuna Kurir, a local paper. Even briefer in VLT. None of these are substantial enough to confer notability, and most of the publications are frankly minor. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. The sources in the article don't add up to much either (Sveriges Radio only mention him in a list of "they also took part"), though the TV appearance probably counts towards notability. It isn't enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Has appeared in many famous Swedish films and TV series. J 1982 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J 1982: As an extra or what? Is that your opinion, or can you prove it with reliable sources? If he's famous he ought to be appearing in newspapers and so on, which he isn't. Can you provide references for major roles he has played? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user J 1982 is right. AfD is not a clean-up service or a tool for making a article better. It is purely for establishing notability or not. Clearly this actor has had important roles. Improvements and expansions can be done. But not by request upon AfD. Period. This article covers WP:GNG. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ: We aren't asking for cleanup, but for deletion on grounds of failing notability, so blustering rhetoric "(. Period. ... Period.)" is way off-beam. If you believe the subject meets the GNG then all you have to do is to provide sources. I had a serious look in the usual places and couldn't find them; if you know of some, now is the time to produce them and I'll happily change my mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the deletion !votes then referring to the articles quality instead of notability?. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd been pretty clear on the matter, but am happy to state plainly that as it stands I have been unable to find proof of notability, and nor it seems has anyone else. I listed what I could find above, and it's not nearly enough. If you can find more, I'll be listening. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this fellow seems to have ample film credits and other work. I see potential for 10x or more expansion to this article if the right fan/editor or Swedish film expert contributes to the article. --♥Golf (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have appeared almost exclusively in minor roles. But if not appearing in newspapers or magazines anywhere in Scandinavia or elsewhere in the world confers notability nowadays, I'm happy to go along with the consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly have to comment snarky at everyone. It becomes obnoxious and makes no difference to the end result in either way.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is versatile actor consistently active for many years (1979 to present). Also a stand up comic with a number of gigs. werldwayd (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre on the Square[edit]

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

~~How notable is this theatre? The Avengers 16:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not to currently suggest better notability and aside from it simply being locally known. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously promotional and a COI. The creator has had the opportunity to improve it. Deb (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and other inclusion criteria. Wikipedia articles must present source to be cited for information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcalife.com[edit]

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

This website is defunct, arguable non-notable and the article has had an advert tag stuck on it for three years. It's about time we considered whether we actually need this article. Rcsprinter¹²³ (confer) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cajole) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (commune) 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. I understand WP:NTEMP but this has insufficient reliable coverage.sst✈^(discuss) 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It was not notable, and now it can never become notable. Ceosad (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Lutheran Church (Greensboro, North Carolina)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable coverage; most mentions I found were aggregator websites. I think this fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. ssт✈^(discuss) 14:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, it does not seem to be notable. No in-depth coverage could be found. Ceosad (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like a NN local church to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others, and churches founded in the late 1900s tend not to get significant appearances in the nearly-ubiquitous US county history, as most such histories were produced before this time, and histories published into the 1910s generally paid attention to older churches, not ones that had just been started. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sampson[edit]

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

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There are sources for Aurous (website), one of his creators, so a redirect there would be acceptable. Otherwise, the sources currently in the article are mostly primary sources and there was nothing extra about the individual in a search of major tech sources. Again, a redirect to Aurous (website) would be fine—it was just reverted by an IP SPA twice. czar 13:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - It might be also wise to protect the redirect for some time (a few months?) to block recreating this article. Just in case. I do not think there is much to preserve as the sources are very bad. WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to even suggest minimal notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software engineer who lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Magdeburg[edit]

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

Non-remarkable interchange. Just like thousands of others in the world. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—still not notable. Imzadi 1979 → 13:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that indicates this is a notable interchange. -- GB fan 14:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another one of these? I wonder if people write these indiscriminate road articles because our guidelines on these are so bad. WP:STREETS has failed like the software notability guideline. These two types of articles are among the worst kinds of good faith articles which tend to bloat the AfD. Ceosad (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being the busiest interchange in Saxony-Anhalt^{[citation needed]} isn't enough. "Pepper" @ 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW joe decker ^talk 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Leverkusen[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange. Just like tens of thousands around the world. Was part of a massive AfD, which was closed as no consensus, since it contained interchanges which might be notable. This one isn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—still not notable. Imzadi 1979 → 13:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything that indicates this is a notable interchange. -- GB fan 14:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates notability of this junction. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And yet another of these... I wonder if people write these indiscriminate road articles because our guidelines on these are so bad. WP:STREETS has failed like the software notability guideline. These two types of articles are among the worst kinds of good faith articles which tend to bloat the AfD. Ceosad (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Directly (and poorly) translated from the German article, which provides no other insight. "Pepper" @ 17:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable cloverleaf interchange. Dough4872 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Same old, same old -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech supercentenarians[edit]

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

This page contains too many contradictions and inaccurancies to be kept. It claims to list Super Old People (110+) born in the Czech Republic but that premise is impossible for the Czech Republic is not that old itself. Even if you generously say that this covers people born within the modern Czech Republic borders, that is an artificial construct given some died before the state was formed and therefore have no connection to it.

The lead text is not supported by the tables. There is no one listed as pending in the tables as claimed in the lead, There are apparently no living 110yr+ people in the country which suggests no need for an article.

Past residents of the Czech Republic are detailed in a 'list' of one person that died in the 1960's - decades before the Czech Republic was formed. So they should be listed on some other page. However, maybe the current list of one should be replaced by another person from down in the bottom list who lived to 110yrs+48 days and actually died in the Czech Republic.

None of the 4 emigrants listed ever lived in the Czech Republic and should be listed whereever they died.

The oldest people in the Czech Republic list at the bottom is OR and only has one person on it briefly (48 days) qualified for mention according to the page name. If oldest person at a given date in a country is encyclopedic and verifiable this list of people who all (but 1) died before -110 does not belong on a page titled for 110+ year olds.

I highly doubt the few names here of people who lived past 110 yrs are dealt with consistently on the European, Austro-Hungary, Year of Death, oldest by country, or other related lists because I've found no consistency between these lists at all. Streamline topic coverage by deleting this page and moving names to year of death and Europe lists because evidently the interested topics editors are incapable of maintaining such a large universe of lists spead over so many pages. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I guess it is best to try to establish a single unified list for the whole Europe. Europe has so many small countries and border changes that keeping these separate is like begging for trouble. In the 2050s they might be able to exist separately, but we do not yet have enough content to include for each and every European country. In contrast, the United States probably deserves its own article. Lets wait half a century, and then reconsider recreating this article. Ceosad (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is often forgotten in looking at the notability of a list like this, is that it isn't enough for there to be reliable secondary sources that qualify subjects for a place on the list - this list topic itself must be notable. In this specific case, this means that it isn't enough that we have sources that give people at a certain age - there must be sources that establish the notability of the topic of Czech supercentenarians as a whole, and I think it's pretty clear we don't have that. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks too large to merge into a larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surprising comment suggesting a misunderstanding of the rational for deletion - 100% of the people on the Czech list should already be on the Europe list (and if not, should be added) so no merge is required or proposed. If there is a different point being made, please clarify. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this article fails WP: LISTN as no sources discuss this particular data set. The two references used for this article are both GRG tables which do nothing to establish notability. Note that these two sources are just names in a table and don't discuss "Czech Republic supercentenarians". I also removed the chronological list section as all but one name was a supercentenarian. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

related AfD covering another arbitrary subset of Europe just closed as Delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Nordic_countries Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. There is zero coverage for a list of Czech old people. It's not a notable topic. David in DC (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, list topic not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Europe list can completely handle this. EEng (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 18:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Problems with the article that can be fixed are not a good reason to delete it. Unless this can be merged without a loss of information, I am not going to support anything but keeping it. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an article, it's a list. Can you please explain how this particular list meets the requirements of WP:LISTN? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since 100% of the info in this list should be in the Europe list, as well as on the Year of death and Living lists, are you ready to change your vote? Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason to delete this list. Merging all the articles into one giant Europe list sounds like a bad idea and will not bring anything helpful with it. It is easier to navigate when we have lists for each and every country since it makes it possible for us to see which countries have produced the most, and the least, amount of supercentenarians. If the result of this AfD is to merge it to the "Europe list" then I agree with Ollie231213, that none of the relevant information in this list should be deleted. 930310 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete? Can you address the WP:LISTN failure with reliable sources (That aren't GRG tables) that discuss this particular data set? CommanderLinx (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reşo Zîlan[edit]

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

This is a vanity article of Non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Even on a site like Amazon I can only find one book (a dictionary) but the dictionary is unavailable. Hassan Rebell (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same issues as with the previous ones: Mahabad Qaradaghi, Abdulla Pashew and Rafiq Sabir. Ceosad (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will pull back my vote, I have completely failed to investigate properly these people. I am not sure what that indeffing case is all about, but I do not want to get involved. Ceosad (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But @Ceosad:, with all due respect, if you've "completely failed to investigate properly these people," why were you "voting" to delete these articles in the first place? WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE applies to all participants at Afd, and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not delete content merely on someone's say so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I wrongly assumed that these people failed the WP:GOOGLETEST. I live in Finland, so the Google decided to spam me with very fringe search results about Kurdish diaspora activities in Sweden. (Swedish is an official language here too.) The local search engine biases can get misleading, and in this case they were extremely bad for me. The very few comprehensible sources I found and looked at were all about diaspora stuff. I should use other search engines more often, especially when Sweden is concerned. A few years ago the Finnish street names were all broken on Google Maps for many months and they all had Swedish names etc. Something might be broken in my Google settings too. Ceosad (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator has an ideosyncratic view of what a "vanity article" is. The creator of this article (Vekoler) has worked on Wikipedia for over ten years, and created a number of articles about important Kurds. His earlier creations, such as this one, reflect the citation style and throughness of Wikipedia at the time they were written. If it were not for the nominator's failure to perform WP:BEFORE searching in nominating a large number of Kurdish articles, and failing in some cases, such as in this one, to notify article creators about the AFDs, and as an IP editor failing to check archive data in the process of marking citation links as dead and declaring articles to be unsourced, he might be forgiven for mistaking this non-promotional article for a "vanity" one. Keep as he meets criteria #6 of WP:PROF. --Bejnar (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some articles about him: Malmîsanij and Reşo Zîlan gave talks on Kurdish language in a seminar in Diyarbakir (2009), Interview with Reşo Zîlan on his immigrant experience in Sweden 2015, Interview with Reşo Zîlan, Swedish government's assistance in Kurdish translations and Reşo Zîlan's role in training Kurdish translators, Reşo Zîlan's talk on Kurdish Dictionaries 2012.Vekoler (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Pashew[edit]

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

This is a vanity article of a non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Even on Amazon.com there are no books from this person. Of course being on Amazon is not an indicator of notability, but a complete absence from Amazon is. Hassan Rebell (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These should really have been bundled in one nomination. Same issues as with the previous ones: Mahabad Qaradaghi and Rafiq Sabir. Ceosad (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be a "book" on her. US newsite Fair Observer describes him as "one of the most famous living Kurdish poets.". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, in this 2014 piece, The Iowa Review describes him "Arguably the most popular contemporary Kurdish poet." He was the subject of this Kurdish news agency article. Pashew meets both WP:GNG and, based on statements made by multiple independent sources about his stature within Kurdish poetry, WP:AUTHOR, as well. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I've been critical of the nominator for how he'd gone about this, he's absolutely correct in doing individual Afds for these articles. The editor who created them is not banned, and there's no reason to think that these poets are uniformly non-notable simply because a particular editor created them. They must be judged on their own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like I have been too hasty and lazy while voting for deletion this time. Thanks for the sources Shawn in Montreal! Ceosad (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non notable writer? Seriously? :) Someone who has no idea about Kurdish literature can ask for a deletion!!! Btw, the nominator is blocked now.--Gomada (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable poet. With multiple examples of coverage in reliable articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. Recreate at the proper time- but not before. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 ITF Women's Circuit (October–December)[edit]

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

WP:TOOEARLY, most of infos aren't available now. 333 -blue 12:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I really hate these spammy sports articles which tend to appear even years before those damn competitions actually happen. Delete because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:TOOEARLY. Ceosad (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per 333-blue, WP:TOOSOON. Unpopulated template, looks horrible in its empty state. It has had detailed articles since 2001 so will no doubt go back up in time, but not this far in advance. Sandbox and/or delete for now. Ditto April 2016 onwards. Rayman60 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. Recreate at the proper time- but not before. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 ITF Women's Circuit (July–September)[edit]

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

WP:TOOEARLY, most of infos aren't available now. 333 -blue 12:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I really hate these spammy sports articles which tend to appear even years before those damn competitions actually happen. Delete because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:TOOEARLY. Ceosad (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per 333-blue, WP:TOOSOON. Unpopulated template, looks horrible in its empty state. It has had detailed articles since 2001 so will no doubt go back up in time, but not this far in advance. Sandbox and/or delete for now. Ditto April 2016 onwards. Rayman60 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. Recreate at the proper time- but not before. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 ITF Women's Circuit (April–June)[edit]

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

WP:TOOEARLY, most of infos aren't available now. 333 -blue 12:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I really hate these spammy sports articles which tend to appear even years before those damn competitions actually happen. Delete because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:TOOEARLY. Ceosad (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per 333-blue, WP:TOOSOON. Unpopulated template, looks horrible in its empty state. It has had detailed articles since 2001 so will no doubt go back up in time, but not this far in advance. Sandbox and/or delete for now. Ditto April 2016 onwards. Rayman60 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation if reliable sources emerge in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21st (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, is not covered in reliable sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seen a lot of messy Indian movie articles recently, and I can't help wondering why they always have so horrid sources that proving their notability is almost impossible... I guess it is just better to delete them until better sources surface. Ceosad (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine how much smaller Wikipedia would be if all unimproved or messy articles were simply deleted out of hand. Would have made my own meager efforts to fix things kind of pointless. LOL Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "21st Movie" "Viswa Kamal" "Naveen Maryada" "Jaishankar Chigurula"

Temporary delete per simply being TOO SOON. This topic It is NOT unsourcable, but all I have found is coverage of the film's audio launch... an event which usually precedes Indian films by a few months. Allow back once we have conformation of filming having actually begun. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Looks like you somehow managed to reach the almost same conclusion I did. If I were here to destroy articles plainly because they are bad, I would have never saved the Kingdom of Ce. Just compare it to its earlier revision. I am currently in progress of saving two Indian women related articles which were recently PRODded for being badly referenced. I am no stranger for saving messy articles, even though your actions have been much more commendable. My original offhand remark was about the weird mentality these Indian articles suffer from, as they tend to come in existence right before any easily reachable in-depth sources blossom. So yes, WP:NOT YET (films) was the real problem. Temporary deletion is a good solution here. Ceosad (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabad Qaradaghi[edit]

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

Non notable, vanity article of non notable writer, the article is part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, this article does not meet WP:GNG. Books by this person are not even available on Amazon. Article doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains the same issues as Rafiq Sabir. At least a few semi-notable interviews existed this time. Ceosad (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent independent coverage here (where she is described by the Ekurd Daily as "Famous Kurdish feminist Mahabad Qaradaghi"; Interviewed in Kurdish American newsite Kurdish Aspect; interviewed also by Swedish website Paraplyprojektet, which describes her as "one of Kurdistan's most famous writers and journalists"; as well as this feature article by Norwegian newsite Friatidningar, which describes her as both a human rights and women's rights activist with the International Organization Kurdish women 's project as well as adviser to the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, KRG. There's really no shortage of this stuff, if one really wants to find it. She easily meets WP:GNG. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit! I completely messed up this time with these related AfD's... Keep Ceosad (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeynelabidîn Zinar[edit]

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

Non notable vanity article of non notable writer. Does not meet WP:GNG. Books not even available on Amazon. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards.Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all and the current sources are not seemingly convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources such as these.[3],[4], [5],[6]. @SwisterTwister: can you reconsider? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient for me, and I'm not sure this harassment by a blocked editor shouldn't all be speedily closed down. Yes, keeping in mind the language difficulty issue, I think you've found enough to meet WP:GNG. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per sources found by Мандичка. WP:ANI. has given permission for a speedy keep on this article if an admin wishes to do so. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zinar was a central figure in the revival of Kurdish literature as detailed in Language and identity in the Middle East and North Africa. As such he meets criteria #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Not that he doesn't otherwise qqualify for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Speedy. This doesn't have a chance of closing delete, and to quote WP:DELPRO, speedy keep is permissible for "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question." The claim this fellow is living, plus the statement in the article at time of nomination that he was working in 1754, is evidence that this nomination probably meets that test. joe decker ^talk 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Antonio Vallejo[edit]

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

An article about a living person that has no significant sources and should not be on Wikipedia. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He died three centuries ago and was a prominent painter active in middle XVIII century. Manuel Toussaint's Arte Colonial de Mexico it's the summa about New Spain Art and talks about this author. I suggested to Paulina Lordméndez (talk · contribs) about add birth and death dates. Thanks, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly not "an article about a living person" given that he died in 1785. Also there are sources provided. Meets WP:GNG _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've previously warned the nominator about inappropriate use of the {{blp-prod}} tag to propose deletion of articles about a non-living person [7][8], and articles which do cite references [9][10] [11] _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated by the above user, this article is not a BLP article and it does cite references. All it needs is a bit of expansion and links to other articles. Zyc1174 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- For a start, he isn't living. Also, it gives a decent amount of coverage in WP:Reliable Sources and therefore passes the golden rule. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - He is dead. Ceosad (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Living person? Nope. No significant sources? Nope. Satisfactory rationale for deletion? Nope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosothon[edit]

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)

I'm relisting this debate as an outcome of this Deletion Review. Although I have no personal opinion about this topic, there is a rough consensus that the sources listed by Tokyogirl79 are worth considering at AfD. —S Marshall T/C 17:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the page seems unduly promotional and there seems to have been some WP:COI argument before. However there were some secondary sources found, and I've found a few academic papers which refer to it as a thing. Together, they're still quite weak, but I'm thinking there is value in having a page on this topic and there are probably just enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. The question then is how to write it without sounding too much like an advert for the events. JMWt (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Professor John Kleinig and I am not a Wikipedia Editor so apologies for any lack of protocol. The currently disputed article on Philosothon, falls clearly within the ambit of Philosophy for Children. First of all, I think that the Philosophy for Children article is far too brief as it stands, and the current reference to the Philosothon that it contains would be uninformative were the Philosothon article not also contained in Wikipedia. Second, I don't see any dispute about the Ethics Bowl entry in Wikipedia, which is something of a US parallel to the Philosothon, though it is not as extensive as the current Philosothon entry. Should the Ethics Bowl article be expanded or the Philosothon article be contracted? That may not be for me to judge, though one of the things I've always like about Wikipedia articles is their attempt at comprehensiveness. Third, and of real salience, although the Philosothon began as the vision of just a few people in a particular place, it has expanded considerably over a relatively short time, and there is some reason to acknowledge this in the more extensive format that it currently has. I can envisage a time when the expansion is such that the competition/program gets to the point at which some of the tables might be eliminated and replaced by reference to other web sites, though when that will be is probably for others to judge. Fourth, some concern has been expressed about conflict of interest and the suggestion that the article is largely promotional. Certainly there is some conflict of interest, though as the Wikipedia editors will be well aware, Community of inquiry as such does not entail bias. For the most part the article is objectively written, whether or not it might also be used for promotional purposes. Perhaps there is room for a more extensive airing and development of criticisms, though I notice that the Wikipedia Community of inquiry article, on which the Philosothon is based, does not itself gesture toward any criticisms of that model. So, apart from the contingent criticism implied by a CoI, one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted. It is certainly no discredit to Wikipedia to have the current article, and it does contain a fair minded if longish account of a growing movement/competition/program.

John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.105.85 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the lengthy contact material from this. Also, please assume good faith. This may not be what you meant by "one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted", but this comes across like you're heavily implying that someone is seeking deletion because of selfish motives (like trying to get rid of a rival, personal grudges, etc) and not because the event fails Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Not only is this not a good way to argue for inclusion but this also puts a lot of editors on the defensive, which can weaken your arguments quite dramatically. There was good reason for people to question the COI of Sydney59 since evidence pointed quite heavily at him being the event's founder, yet he was not forthcoming with this information and he had to be directly asked several times before he confirmed that he was this man. To put it bluntly, there was good cause for concern over this given the way the article had been written and given that it wasn't entirely easy to find sources for this, I can see where people would think that this event was non-notable, so I don't think that there were any ulterior motives at play from anyone arguing for the article's deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Since the original nomination for deletion there has been additional secondary sources added to this article. These were ignored and hence my request for a deletion review. During the review other sources have been found by Tokyogirl79. So this issue of sufficient secondary sources has been dealt with. To the issue of whether this is an advertisement. The article claims that the Philosothon "aims at encouraging children to think more reasonably and make wiser decisions". This could be interpreted as an advertisement or the fact of the matter....which obviously could also be used as promotion. As other editors have pointed out this is not a sales pitch to sell a product or promote a band it is an educational initiative where the aim is to encourage children to think more reasonably and make wiser decisions. It sits within the Philosophy for Children movement. (There are similar claims made in the Wikipedia article written about P4C and the article about the Ethics Bowl which Professor Kleinig refers to above, which have not elicited the claim that either of these are 'advertisements'. This article was never written as an advertisement and this brings me to whether this article is sufficiently objective. The article was written by me and submitted to an academic journal where it was peer reviewed by several university academics and then edited. (See http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (pge13) These editorial revisions were later included in edits of the Wikipedia article. Again the claim that there is a lack of objectivity is thereby refuted. If there are further editorial changes that need to be made of the Philosothon article then go for it. I am happy for anyone to improve this article but why delete it?Sydney59 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no notability, still reads like and advertisement, and still looks to be pushing an agenda. As was observed in the last afd, Wikipedia is still not a means of promotion - and lets be honest here, given the template added to this afd promotion seems to be the only thing the keep party has an interest in. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In lew of the "not a vote" template on the page I took a look through the history of the Philosothon article. I've found a lot of ISP addresses that go back to Australia generally, but what caught my attention were the accounts Sydney59 (talk · contribs) and Matwills59 (talk · contribs), the latter of which appears to be a burner account devoted exclusively to this article and Matthew Wills, which Sydney59 recreated according to the deleted contributions log. Its not enough at the moment to prove sockpuppetry conclusively, however I wanted to post the results here so that everyone would be aware of the preliminary findings. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Woo there big fellow. Not sure what sock-puppetry is but assuming you mean I am using another persons UserName you are barking up the wrong tree....(very wrong) Given that the event started and has grown largely in Australia then it is not surprising that there is a lot of ISP addresses go back to Australia. That the article has been written by me and undergone many edits by me is not under dispute either. I took a quick look at the pages you have written and there is an impressive list of military pages and particularly pages related to the navy. No doubt this is because you have some background and interest in the area. Are you promoting the US navy, the US war machine... probably... but if the articles are well written I have no problem with that...but I would not dare to call for a deletion of one of your pages largely because I have no background in the area. Likewise, you do not have any background in education, nor in philosophy so please do not pretend to know the difference between promotion and a program which many schools use. By the way the so called "template" is a letter that Professor Kleinig asked to have placed on this review site. You can email him if you want to take issue with him or ask him if I am using him as a puppet. He is a Professor in Education and Philosophy at a renowned US University. I think his assessment of this article as 'objective' goes a little further than yours...respectfully. Sydney59 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using another user account is one form of sockpuppetry, that much is true. Another interpretation is that the accounts have a vested interest in protecting the article from outside...interference, shall we say. Now like I said, this is informal, and only carried out to get a better lay of the land. I want to make this very clear, right here and right now: You Are Not In Any Trouble. All the post above is meant to note is that there are two editors with similar editorial patterns that have a history on the pages. In point of fact I lack any evidence to purse this through official channels, though I have asked for a look under the hood to see whose behind the accounts my guess is that the two of you are not going to match up. Many users here who have a declared conflict of interest often bump into this problem at least once on an afd due to empirical editor evidence presence in contribution and deleted contribution logs. The above post doesn't officially become relevant to the present afd until the MatWills59(?) edits this afd, then the matter officially graduates from observation to concern for sanctioned action. If editors saw contributions from TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and TomStar810 (talk · contribs) then someone would make the same observation. And your right about my military history contributions, I do have a lot of them but I'm not working for government or the USN. Keep in mind that like Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) I'm an administrator here, so I'm expected to be suspicious of usernames and contribution histories here on the English Wikipedia when this sort of thing happens. Despite the fact that I have made what I feel to be a relevant observation, I am still obliged to assume good faith, so until the accounts are proven malevolent I can take no action against them. Think of this as a Philosothon; the question being asked is "Should you always listen to the opinions of others?" You're position from the above edits is yes, but others may have a different opinion. In the grander scheme of things, this is a Kobyashi Maru test: everyone solves the problem differently based on their given skill set and interpretation of the guidelines and policies here. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per JMWt and WP:GNG. There are sources (many of which are within the article) that do cover this event, and I believe that it is just enough to meet WP:GNG... barely. And I do mean barely. I agree that the article has issues as far as neutrality and its content, but we as experienced editors need to remember something important: this is completely irrelevant. The article itself needs improvement; that does not mean that it should be deleted per the AFD criterion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News reveal four independent sources providing secondary source coverage, and Google Scholar reveals an abundance of reliable scholarly sources providing direct coverage. There is no evidence I can find of financial or personal conflict of interest, and there is no shame in writing about something you know about and are interested in. Notions that Australian sources represent excessively local coverage are absurd. This competetion is 8 years old and has gone international. It is unclear to me why this article is being treated with the suspicion usually associated with new start corporations with authors who are trying to sell something. This is a scholarly subject related to education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism/minor event. Previous AFD discussion was well-directed. Massive COI. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle please note that the COI issue has been dealt with during the review claim following the deletion of the article. The article was peer reviewed for a reputable journal and it was edited by university based academics that are specialists in Philosophy and Education. In terms of lack of notability it is not notable in the US but nor is Neighbours and AFL football both of which deserve a place in this encyclopaedia. Likewise this event is notable in an educational environment in Australasian and UK Schools, high school, middle schools and primary schools. Notability has also been established. So why delete? Sydney59 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs)
- @Sydney59: As long as you are still editing the article, there will be a conflict of interest on that page, whether you wish it to be there or not. You must learn to accept that, and work with our policies and guidelines governing the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @TomStar81: This discussion is meant to be about the merits of the article. You and others are quick to quote policies but you seem to ignore the ones that don't suit you. Editors are reminded that as far as neutrality is concerned ;

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." I have and will continue to work within the policies and guidelines governing Wikipedia.Sydney59 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A non-notable school competition. Soap-box, advertising, biases, no notability above other typical competitions, depth of coverage lacking, potential conflict of interest, and multiple other issues as raised above. Ceosad (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many other competitions on Wikipedia. See the American Mathematics Contest, International Physics Olympiad, United States Academic Decathlon and the Ethics_Bowl So why is this one less notable? Oh I forgot it is in the southern hemisphere. And it does not relate to Maths and Science....Therefore it is not notable. As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) and others have pointed out this is notable in Australasia and the UK ....(and there is more to Australasia than Neighbours and AFL Football.) Also how is this advertising? What is it selling? Education??? Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) & Appable (talk · contribs) both found enough secondary sources to indicate notability. So have you done your research Ceosad (talk · contribs)? JMWt (talk · contribs) also indicated that there was sufficient secondary sources to warrant the articles inclusion but pointed out the inherent difficulty in making such an article not sound like an advertisement. Oshwah (talk · contribs) pointed out that the article itself needs improvement but that does not mean that it should be deleted per the AFD criterion. All of these editors argued that there should be a space for this page on Wikipedia. Can editors posting to this discussion please read the earlier parts of this discussion before posting and can they please provide new arguments rather than the same unsubstantiated accusations. The issue of bias/promotion/notability/depth of coverage have been addressed by people including Professor in Education, John Kleinig who has published over 30 books in the fields of philosophy and education and he has argued that the Philosothon is notable and that this article is more objective than most Wikipedia articles written in the area. (including the ones above)Sydney59 (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sydney59: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney59: Very well, I will concede that my accusation for lack of coverage might have been somewhat harsh considering that there are some fairly good references. I will also clarify that I meant that these competitions are not more notable than any other typical philosophy competitions in Australia. Other kinds of competitions or their existence on Wikipedia is not really relevant here. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) We cannot list all competitions in Wikipedia: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No competition is inherently notable, and even though this one has some reasonable references they do not prove that this topic merits an inclusion.

However, if I need to tell exactly what is wrong with the notability, I can do that: The whole topic of Philosothon is problematic as it is an umbrella term for a certain kind of a high school philosophy competition. Therefore, I will accuse this article for being guilty of coat-racking, as it makes it sound that there is some kind of a global organization that runs all these competitions. WP:COATRACK and WP:NEO. I have not seen any evidence that these Philosothons are more than a loose grassroots network of school co-operation. The Australasian Philosothon might be barely notable, but the rest of them can not be, unless there really is some kind of a global organization out there that organizes these events.

This article is a mix of indiscriminate competition results, and coat-racking of regional events to hide the fact that this whole focus of the article should be on the neologism. WP:NEO, WP:NAD, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:COATRACK. This is why I agree with Stifle that this is a neologism. Using Wikipedia to promote a product/concept/competition/whatever may sometimes be itself enough to justify deleting an article, and then rewriting it from scratch. Short version: There is no such competition in existence, the focus of the article is on a concept that is a neologism! There is no prestige in winning a prize at a Philosothon competition, so these are essentially minor events and thus not valid for inclusion at Wikipedia. Ceosad (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Sydney59 in being allowed to contribute this stuff, and agree that there is an anti-philosophy bias at play, one that permeates all of Wikipedia. It is probably because philosophy is not very fact-filled. This criticism of notability and non-independent sources is not often applied to very specialised mathematics subtopics.

We cannot list all competitions, but we can list all competitions that others have written about.

The looseness of "Philosophon" as a topic title is a problem.

The article, and http://fapsa.org.au/philosothon/, begin "A Philosothon is an event that ...". Sounds like a neologism. Wikipedia is very resistant of promotion of neologisms. There is no entry at Wikt:Philosothon, and that is a big problem. I agree with Ceosad that articles on specific past-tense Philosothon competitions would be more palatable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceosad: Again please do your research. This is not "coat-hanging of regional events". The event is organized and coordinated by FAPSA (Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations (http://fapsa.org.au/) and SAPARE (Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education)in the UK. This is stated clearly in the article. Please read the article before condemning it.Sydney59 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney59: Yes, but FAPSA organizes only the Australasian competitions, right? As I have stated, the Australasian Philosothon competitions are a somewhat different case (as they are handled by more established organization and they seem to work independently from other related organizations like SAPERE, to be precise). SAPERE is a very recent organization to start advocating Philosothon method. Countries including Israel, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland are mentioned in the article, but I cannot find more on them. I read a few Finnish language sources, but they were just passing mentions. The Finnish seminar in 2014 seems to have been by Doctor of Philosophy Eero Salmenkivi. I am criticizing the forceful inclusion of winners and small scale competitions or events outside Australia and Asia. No competitions have ever been held in Finland for instance, or at least there is no trace left on the internet. This article needs a serious rewriting to be either about the Australasian competitions, or in-depth about the method itself. If neither can be achieved, this is essentially going to stay as a coat-rack. I would be open to the solution of renaming this article to either Australasian Philosothon competitions or Philosothon method. With adequate rewriting I can imagine myself agreeing with keeping this article. The method can be notable, even if the competitions are not. I have not yet done enough research on the method itself to assess whether or not the method itself can be considered notable. We should at least try to decide what the exact primary topic of the article is or should be, and as SmokeyJoe stated too, the looseness of the current topic title is problematic. Ceosad (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceosad: Better research but still not correct...The article indicates that each region/state has their own Philosothon coordinating body, the Victorian Association for Philosophy in Schools (http://vaps.vic.edu.au/)(VAPS) co-ordinates the Victorian Philosothon, the Western Australian Philosothon is hosted by the WA Association for Philosophy in Schools (APIS). (http://waapis.com/about) NSW Philosothon is coordinated by the Philosophy in Schools Association of NSW (http://www.philosophyinschoolsnsw.org/)and so on for each state or region. None of these organizations have a Wikipedia Page (Nor does FAPSA or SAPERE) and they should. In fact I would have edited a page for each of these but for the experience I have had with this page which has discouraged me. Also the methodology is not called "Philosothon". The methodology is Community of Inquiry so to rewrite the page in terms of writing about a Philosothon methodology is not possible. The history must include the UK Philosothon (http://philosothon.co.uk/about-us/) and therefore cannot be just about Australasian Philosothon competitions. The article should be and is about a competition called a Philosothon which includes its history and methodology. Sydney59 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney59: I guess I have nothing more meaningful to add to this discussion at this point. I kind of tried to argue that there is no global organization that watches the local organizers, but I am starting to feel confused about all this. However, all those different organizations make these competitions sound decentralized, disconnected and isolated from each other, which would help prove some of my points. Anyway, my sources called the Philosothon a methodology by itself without referring to the Community of Inquiry (including the Finnish language sources). I will now let other people join the discussion rather than hijacking this AfD page for myself. Ceosad (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Almost all of the content in this article is a misunderstanding of the scope of Wikipedia. Content in Wikipedia needs to be a summary of what has been published on a topic, and in the case of events like this one, the sources cited cannot be published by organizations with a financial relationship to the event. If this article is kept, 90% of the content in it will need to be deleted for sure. Among the content which has citations, a lot of it is self published. I fail to recognize enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are low and it is not apparent to me that this topic meets them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:I quote from you above:

"the sources cited cannot be published by organizations with a financial relationship to the event."

You completely fail to understand the nature of the event (which suggests that the article does need to be rewritten)....The event is cost free and the organizations hosting and running these events do not usually charge schools an entrance fee. The various associations (VAPS,WA APIS, FAPSA, and SAPERE etc.) are all not for profit volunteer professional associations. The schools and universities that host the events underwrite the costs themselves and therefore their is no financial profit in hosting or running these events. The publicity if a school wins the event is a benefit but it is not a financial benefit. In any case the school based cited sources (and there are many hundreds of them not cited with this article) have NO financial relationship to the event. They merely participate in the event. This being the case most of the cited sources are secondary sources: ABC radio national programs, Newspaper articles, academic journal articles, doctoral thesis' etc. etc. (these are not self published) these are all secondary sources. Again there is "no" financial relationship and they are written and edited by independent publishers or radio broadcasters without any financial transactions. Other editors such as Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), Appable (talk · contribs) & JMWt (talk · contribs) have recognized this. Given this....while the article does need to be reworked it should not be deleted.Sydney59 (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney59 I recognize everything you say and I agree with you on all points except your conclusion - I still say delete. I fear that you wish for Wikipedia to be a place for original publishing when instead Wikipedia is a place to summarize what has already been published. Deletion review is not complicated and there is almost never ambiguity. I hear your arguments but you are giving information that has nothing to do with the criteria for judging for deletion. Please - directly and briefly - provide the best 2-3 published sources about this event and which feature this event as the subject of the publication. Nothing else matters. The accusation which this article is facing is that those sources do not exist. Please prove otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with Sydney59 on my own talkpage. There Sydney shared these sources-

Saunders, Alan. "The Philosophers Zone". ABC. Retrieved 10 January 2012 This is the national broadcaster in Australia and they have produced several programs about the event. This is one that is available online.
Flood, Gary & (2014). "A Marathon for the Mind". Retrieved 10 November 2014. This is an independently produced UK based journal.
Mc Donald, Gaye. "Bournemouth Echo". UK based publication.
"The West Australian". Australasian Philosothon cited. The West Australian Regional. Retrieved 11 November 2015.

I now say keep because these meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Still - parts of the current iteration of this article which are not backed by citations can be deleted. I think everyone is in agreement that revision is needed. However, what is cited should remain, and the article should not be deleted. A good next step would be deleting everything without a citation. Anyone who wants to restore deleted text can do so when they match the deleted text with a source which verifies the removed statement. Keep the article! Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Yes, this article does need improvement. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines in some respects. But I think we should look at "does it add value to Wikipedia", since the original intent of the notability and COI and promotional policies were to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a personal soapbox, advertising platform, or a collection of unverified material. With the number of sources it has, it does meet WP:GNG: it has some substantial coverage (not a lot, but I think enough for inclusion), and while it's promotional as is, I think it'd require, as Sydney stated above, a rework, not a rewrite. But the subject of the article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and I feel this article does add to Wikipedia (just a little bit, just like all the five million articles on their own: small as a whole but as a sum a huge collection of human knowledge and ideas). And since the promotional content could be cleaned up rather than requiring a true rewrite, it's certainly worth saving the article. Most likely, the cleanup would involve a lot of content deletion - but there's certainly some sources that would make this a still-notable article, though perhaps more of a stub- or start-class article (and I don't feel like that's a bad thing - that's how many articles start). Appable (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would counsel User:Sydney59 to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge Is there another article where this could be mentioned? QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosothon has mentions at Australasian Association of Philosophy & Philosophy for Children. Either could be a suitable "merge and redirect" target. Both currently define the neologism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note Following the recommendations of editors including @Bluerasberry: this article has now been significantly shortened and edited. Much of the uncited content has been deleted. Sydney59 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney59 Deleting this unsourced content (7,000 characters!) makes the article confirm in a much better way with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. The four sources Bluerasberry listed above.
2. Roberts, Sue; Steinbauer, Anja; Wills, Matthew (September–October 2014). "Australasian Philosothon". Philosophy Now. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22. (subscription required)
  The article notes:
  Hale School started the Philosothon back in 2007 and since then it has grown prolifically throughout Australia and overseas. Australasian Philosothons have been conducted annually since 2011. The first UK Philosothon was held this year at King’s College in Taunton.
  More than 100 students from 13 schools in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia participated in the event. Each participating school had been placed in the top three schools in their respective state Philosothons. Internationally renowned guest speakers participated in the event including Professor John Kleinig (John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York) who addressed the topic ‘Drones, Distance, and Death’ and Professor Tziporah Kasachkoff (Ben Gurion University) who spoke on the topic ‘Socrates exhorts us to follow the argument where it leads. Should we?’ Assoc. Professor Phil Cam from the University of NSW, who is Chair of the Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations, was also a guest speaker and judge at the event.
3. Higgitt, Dave (2015-02-11). "Young philosophers have winning thoughts". Edquarter. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The article notes:
  The Philosothon is an inter-schools competition based on philosophical dialogue, with emphasis on individual debate. Students are given topic questions and stimulus reading materials in advance to enable them to prepare, and each candidate is marked by an academic philosopher on their contribution, including how they help analyse, evaluate, refine and conclude arguments.
  This year’s tasks, created by Julie Arliss of Academy Conferences, who spearheaded the Philosothon movement in the UK, included ‘What is art?’, ‘Is the purpose of life to be happy?’, ‘What is the point in education?’ and ‘What makes you, you?’
  ...
  Philosothon tasks are designed to help students start pulling together the threads between subject areas to see how each area of knowledge influences one to the other. Students have to bring all their understanding as well as their social skills to the table to make progress together.
4. Kasachkoff, Tziporah; Eugene, Kelly (Fall 2012). "Letter From the Editors". APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy. American Philosophical Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
  The article notes:
  Our fourth and final article, by Matthew Wills, is entitled “Fostering the Exploration of Philosophical and Ethical Questions among School Students in Australasia.” Wills reports on the establishment of “Philosothons,” first at Hale School in Western Australia (where Wills himself teaches), then in other secondary Australian schools, and finally as national events. He explains the nature of a “Philosothon,” provides the list of specific philosophical topics that served as the focusof the first Philosothon that was held, and presents us with the list of criteria used for assessing student participation in Philosothons. Finally, he considers, and answers, an objection to the concept of learning philosophy (and assessing the learning of philosophy) in the way described, and provides links for readers who wish to know more about Philosothons in general, and/or the notion of “Communities of Inquiry” on which Philosothons are based.
  Wills' article begins on page 13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Philosothon to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Social Security[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this journal is indexed on HeinOnline (see this source), it appears that this journal has been cited only twice by other law journals between the years 2007 and 2014 (see this link and sort by journal cites). Therefore, I think this article fails relevant notability guidelines. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this seems like the exact example of the other journals which simply have no solid signs and coverage to suggest a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epistolary between Miguel Miramón and Concepción Lombardo[edit]

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

This shouldn't be in the English Wikipedia. Please redirect to the french Wikipedia. Thank you. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these series of letters between Miguel Miramón, general and president of Mexico in 1859, and Concepción Lombardo, Miguel Miramón's wife, are an important series of documents that portray how life was for these two important characters of Mexican history in the XIX century. Additionally, they show how and why Miguel Miramón made certain military and political decisions, as well as his last words to his wife before his death in 1867. These points of view are very important for Mexican history and are only seen in this document so it should be considered relevant in the English Wikipedia. --Psanchez820 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because a book isn't in English or isn't about things in the English-speaking world, doesn't mean it can't be an English Wikipedia article. @Alvin the Almighty: do you have any more reasons why the page should be deleted? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one doesn't know what to make of this nomination statement. We don't redirect to foreign language wikis and there isn't a French Wikipedia article. Normally I'd be open to the argument that these letters aren't notable in themselves but without a sensible argument here, I'm going to default to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely and I would've even closed as such but there may be signs this is not solidly notable for an independent article yet, but there's another matter likely, so keep for now perhaps as it seems informative and sourced. SwisterTwister talk 08:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kirsch[edit]

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

Refs in article do not appear to support a viable notability claim. The first two are links to places which only mention the subject but provide no depth of coverage, the third is a discography listing from Allmusic.com (again, no depth), the fourth and fifth come from the subject's own website (lack of independence), and the sixth is a press release (which defines lack of independence). Article needs multiple references in independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth in order to justify retaining it. There appears to be some evidence that the subject's work is notable, but this does not make the subject himself notable. That the article was originally created by a WP:SPA (of User:Mufcseo123) over the course of two days back in 2013 strongly suggests that the article was the result of some undisclosed paid editing. The article creator was clearly a skilled editor, but just as clearly was not using his main account to write this article, which while not technically a violation of policy in most respects... (fill in the blank there). I will be very surprised if he rears his head in this discussion. The trio of "I'm me" external links (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) combined with the inadequacy of the references provided (several of which have failed verification) would seem to consolidate this fact. Let's ditch this. KDS4444^Talk 08:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there isn't even anything to suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 refs only - 2 are to own website, 2 are questionable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architects in gurgaon[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for FAQs - WP:NOTFAQ. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've removed the website link; a non-encyclopaedic WP:NOTHOWTO article. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clearly isn't an encyclopedia article: WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFAQ _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It all seems to be WP:OR, without references or encyclopaedic merit.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with others. Wiki is not a place for FAQs. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A'amaal Ummi Dawud[edit]

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

Non notable "supplication". These "supplication" articles seem to have sprung up lately , all of them unsourced and deletion worthy. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub article with no viable possibility of expansion. LjL (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost a WP:A1 or WP:A3 speedy deletion. Lacks coverage in reliable sources (checked both the Persian and English terms on Google News and Google Books; the 1–3 hits do not appear to be reliable sources), thus fails WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only just now realized it, but the nominator is correct - this isn't the only random supplication article that has popped up recently. In and of itself, the article still fails GNG on its own but the trend is something worth noting as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails to have multiple substantive discussion in reliable sources, i.e. it fails the general notability guidelines. Duas are for Allah, not encyclopedias. --Bejnar (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Ligue Régional I[edit]

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

Season article for the 5th division of Algerian football. The standings are missing plenty of information and it's very poorly written. I don't know if any of the seasons are notable. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We may also need to consider the notability of 2009–10 Ligue Régional I and 2011–12 Ligue Régional I. Interestingly, no articles exist for the seasons in between. Spiderone 19:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lowly amateur season, does not meet WP:GNG. @Spiderone: you might want to bundle those related articles into this AFD, they are also non-notable. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way below professional level and so does not qualify to have season-specific articles Spiderone 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Pflaum Hut[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability of the subject. I tagged this for a lack of notability in May 2012[12] and nothing was done to establish notability. There are now three references in the article but these do not establish notability. The main reference is a guidebook describing "over 100 walks and multi-day treks" in Austria. The other two provide "hotel guide" type entries to various huts, only a small handful of which seem independently notable. None of the sources provide the "significant" coverage required by WP:GNG. A search for other sources that might go to establishing notability comes up with sites that are generally blogs, other self-published sources, and travel guides. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose i.e. Keep. The Fritz Pflaum Hut is an important base for mountaineering and hiking in the Kaiser Mountains. Whilst the article is a work in progress and should be further expanded, its basic notability has been established by the internationally recognised Alpine Clubs of Germany and Austria (not "hotel guides" as mis-stated above) as well as a hikers and climbers guide to the Austrian Alps (not a "travel guide" although inclusion in a guide is surely an indicator of notability). As the creator of several thousand Wikipedia articles, my sense is that the nom is demanding a higher level of notability than Wikipedia normally requires for this type of article. Regrettably, he has also refused to engage in discussion on the article talk page, has not given opportunity for a third opinion and, having twice reverted my edits to remove the notability hatnote after adding references, has jumped straight to a deletion request to avoid the "three reverts" rule. If this deletion request is accepted, all Alpine hut articles in Europe will no doubt follow as most of them have already been notability tagged by the nom. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A claim to notability has to be established, and that hasn't happened. Whether the sources are "hotel guides" or a "hikers and climbers guide", they're still "guides" that list other huts equally. Note that I didn't say they were hotel guides, I said "hotel guide" type, which is still the case. Claiming that I haven't engaged in discussion on the talk page is a misrepresentation. I opened a discussion on your talk page to discuss the process we use for establishing notability,[13] not only for this article, but for all articles, which you don't seem to accept. And yes, this AfD is likely to affect all of the other hut articles that fail to establish notability. Unfortunately, there are many of them.

"inclusion in a guide is surely an indicator of notability" - No it isn't. Otherwise every hotel, motel and person with a telephone would be notable. Notability is not inherited. The guide might be notable, but that doesn't mean the individual entries are notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your view and others differ, hence the number of articles. What we really need to do is work together to improve, expand and reference them. Bermicourt (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a view that has been upheld at numerous AfDs. I suggest you read WP:NOTINHERITED. As you are well aware, you've previously discussed the notability requirements on my talk page, over two years ago,[14] and yet there has been no attempt to address the problems, other than to remove the notability tags. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to mislead. You've avoided discussion on the talk page which is where issues are meant to be resolved. And "no attempt to address the problems" is slightly undermined by the fact that references have, in fact, been added and there is a willingness to add more. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained above, I opened a discussion on your talk page because the problems exist at multiple pages where you keep removing {{notability}} tags despite pages not establishing notability.

"is slightly undermined by the fact that references have, in fact, been added" - Yes, three years after the tags were added and two years after you asked how to resolve the problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In addition to the reasons cited above by Bermicourt, the article's notability is supported by WP:GEOFEAT. Bede735 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GEOFEAT does not say that all buildings are notable. It says that buildings can be notable, but that they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. This is the basic problem with this article and Bermicourt's reasons do not address the lack of sources. GEOFEAT, in fact, supports the arguments that I have provided on his talk page and here. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I do think AussieLegend does us a service by raising questions about notability about articles relating to the Alps which are potentially of questionable significance. It makes us think about what we are doing. As a newcomer to joining the Mountains of the Alps project, I have been surprised - almost shocked - by how brief many of the articles are, yet there are so many stubs that are very clearly notable, and probably a few longer ones - like this one - that are somewhat less certain. Sadly many have remained that way for quite some time, but the European Alps is a big place with a lot of notable features within it, and few Wikipedians signed up to help out. Work does not need to be done to create new stubs, but enhance existing articles, and I note the talk page discussion on that very point was agreed to by Bermicourt in 2013 on AussieLegend talk page, but was rather curtly responded to.

I don't believe that a quick look around Google should be the basis of asserting lack of notability, but I applaud AussieLegend for raising the concerns. I would offer the following observations:

There are at least six printed and commercially available guidebooks to the Wilder Kaiser/Kaisergebirge mountain range. (See bottom of this page). I don't have access to these, but I would hope that AussieLegend does, and that's why he thinks he is correct in suggesting this article relates to some non-notable mountain hotel, of which there are many in the area, and none have articles on them. If he hasn't checked the literature, but only looked at Google, he cannot assert the hut is not notable. I think it is. From my experience of other parts of the Alps, the climbing guides we use are not available online, but the high mountain bases described within them clearly form a key and notable element to all current mountaineering and historic mountain exploration within those ranges, and I would tend to view most of them as notable within the context of our project, including this particular high level refuge.
The Fritz Pflaum refuge is clearly not one of the many low altitude tourist hotels in the range, as has been implied. The Austrian online map portal shows it is remote and, indeed, the highest mountain refuge in its range, and therefore would have been inextricably linked with mountaineering achievements of exploration of notable summits in that range.
I don't accept that WP:GEOFEAT support's AussieLegend's view at all, but neither does it provide clear justification for every alpine restaurant marked on the map from the valley to the summit to be notable. I think it gives us a guide, and it steers me towards notability, especially when all the other points I am raising here are taken into account.
There are numerous adjacent mountaineering/rock climbing routes published from the Fritz Pflaum Hut.
That the Fritz Pflaum hut is a high, remote mountain refuge in a prominent and significant position within a cultural feature - a nationally designated and IUCN recognised nature reserve.
Alternatively, by taking the reverse view, one could argue that the Fritz Pflaum hut and others like it could be regarded as part of the local mountain community. I don't like this approach myself, but if it were taken, I would be obliged to quote from WP:LOCAL that:Editors will generally not object to articles about places of local interest that are sufficiently long (not a stub), contain appropriate information (e.g. several of the ideas for information to include above), and are reasonably well-referenced. Such articles can be kept as separate articles, even if they weren't created in accordance with the above suggestions.
The Fritz Pflaum moutain hut is a recognised and properly mapped feature which, whilst not being sufficient justification in itself for meeting WP:GEOFEAT, gives it verifiability, and the fact that it is the highest and most remote mountain refuge which has stood for 103 years within a notable mountain range leads me towards accepting notability.
The mountain refuge has a corresponding page on German wikipedia, which has not received a proposal for deletion.
There are some 40Mb of online documentation regarding the 100 year history of the Fritz Pflaum Refuge, including an account of Pflaum's Jewish background, how the hut had its name changed during the Anschluss, and on Pflaum's climbing achievements and his subsequent death when he fell through a crevassse on an ascent of the Monch and died of his injuries a few days later. It would be good to see some of this content incorporated into the article under consideration for deletion.
Accepting this proposal for deletion because it has taken some time for further enhancements to be made does, in AussieLegend's expressed view, give him or others a rationale for taking the same approach on similar high mountain refuges articles. I find this to be of concern, and not a position I would wish to accept.
I would normally wish to chastise anyone (who I sometimes light-heartedly refer to as a 'Wikipedia Nazi') if they rush to propose deletion of an article or suite of articles, especially if they have little knowledge of the subject area and no access to the relevant literature (and not just to Google), and especially if they've not given the article editors time to enhance it, or raised concern on a talk page. I don't think the former has been done at all here, but the latter most certainly was - on Bermicourt's talk page, anyway, although not the article's. That said, the proposer should refer to WP:NOEFFORT which does not provide any justification for deletion just because some time has gone by and they have now become frustrated. Recent changes have clearly now been made, and I hope the links I've included here may assist others in adding a few more.

All the above points now having been said, my clear conclusion, as I stated at the outset, is to Oppose. Parkywiki (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that WP:GEOFEAT support's AussieLegend's view at all - My view is that WP:GNG requires significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Bermicourt seems to disagree, believe almost that a single source is all that is required. this is not significant coverage. WP:GEOFEAT specifically says They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, which clearly does support my view, since my view is that of WP:GNG.
I note the talk page discussion on that very point was agreed to by Bermicourt in 2013 on AussieLegend talk page, but was rather curtly responded to. - It only appears to be a curt response because Bermicourt failed to discuss further or request further guidance. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are misrepresenting my position. I have never said that a single source is sufficient for notability (although WP:GNG implies that it may be in some situations). And your explanation of your response is not logical: your response wouldn't have become less curt if I'd responded to it. Actually I gave up because I could see you were not prepared to discuss these articles open-mindedly or work towards a consensus. As this latest episode has proven. Bermicourt (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you haven's said that a single source is all that is needed. You don't seem to believe references are necessary at all, given the number of unreferenced article from which you have removed the notability tag.[15][16][17][18][19] I have always been willing to discuss these articles but when I have responded, you disappear. You don't need me to help you improve the articles. You seem quite content to create the articles, but not to reference them or even convert their infoboxes from German, which I had to do for you. I shouldn't have to chase you to get a response. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some other issues:

There are at least six printed and commercially available guidebooks - Generally, guidebooks do not go towards establishing notability unless they provide the "signifcant" coverage required by WP:GNG, or WP:GEOFEAT
the high mountain bases described within them clearly form a key and notable element to all current mountaineering and historic mountain exploration within those ranges - Notability is not inherited. The history of exploration might be notable, but that doesn't mean the hut is notable. Notability has to be established separately.
the fact that it is the highest and most remote mountain refuge which has stood for 103 years within a notable mountain range - Again, notability is not inherited and age does not demonstrate notability. I have a fossil in front of me that is 290 million years old. It's not notable either.
the Fritz Pflaum hut is a high, remote mountain refuge in a prominent and significant position within a cultural feature - The cultural feature might be notable but, again, notability is not inherited.
The mountain refuge has a corresponding page on German wikipedia, which has not received a proposal for deletion - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
the 100 year history of the Fritz Pflaum Refuge, including an account of Pflaum's Jewish background - I note that there is no article for Fritz Pflaum here or at the German Wikipedia. That would seem to indicate a lack of notability.

I appreciate your arguments but the article still does not seem notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE and STRONG KEEP Clearly a notable and noted structure and an important waypoint for climbers. Given its high perch and relative inaccessibility, the amount of coverage is telling. Moreover, there was no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that there was no WP:Before is completely incorrect. I have been watching this and similar articles since 2012, when I first created {{Infobox hut}} and have been trying to get notability established since then. However, attempts to notify editors of the requirement to establish notability by tagging the articles with {{notability}} has been thwarted by User:Bermicourt who persistently removes notability tags, apparently for no other reason than he doesn't understand WP:GNG.[20][21][22][23] Over the past 3 1/2 years I have attempted to establish notability myself, but establishing notability of a hut in Germany or Austria from Australia has proven almost impossible. As stated in the nomination, a search for other sources that might go to establishing notability comes up with sites that are generally blogs, other self-published sources, and travel guides. The travel guides include online and offline sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 1:25 am, Today (UTC+11)

Given the nature of the subject matter, what is wrong with travel guides as a WP:RS. You think maybe this should be written up in a scholarly journal? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it doesn't need to be in a scholarly journal. That's a silly suggestion. Per WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT the subject must receive "significant" coverage in sources independent of the subject. That means more than a casual mention. A travel guide dealing specifically with the hut would qualify as a reliable source. A travel guide dealing with 100 other huts would not. The travel guides that I've seen fall into the latter category. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we are "relisting" because you don't like the result. This is just a serial relisting, i.e., a process in search of the desired result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since I haven't commented on the discussion and I obviously have no stake on either side in the matter... ansh 666 05:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to relist xfDs that haven't had a lot of traffic. We aim to get a wide input to these discussions, and not just restrict it to people who have a vested interest in keeping or deleting articles. User:7&6=thirteen, I suggest that you be more civil in your communication with other editors, and not attack people for following process. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I have never seen people use "oppose" before, usually the votes are either "keep" or "delete"). I've had a look over the article's sources, and while they seem to verify that this hut exists, they do not convince me that it is in fact notable by Wikipedia's standards. I am especially surprised that a claim of notability is being made for the hut before an article has even been written for the person for whom it is purportedly named (which seems backwards at best). If this structure were notable, it would be discussed (not merely mentioned) in multiple reliable sources (in any language)— arguments about it being the "highest" such hut, etc., aside, this does not seem to be the case. 07:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Further references have been added and the article's notability is now established by 5 books, the Alpine Journal and the official websites of the German and Austrian Alpine Clubs. Almost every sentence is now referenced. We could add still more, but that begins to look like overkill. I hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, you can only vote once. --AussieLegend (✉) 7:33 pm, Yesterday (UTC+11)

Attention. In view of the recent major improvement to this articles' references, it would be make sense if the editor(s) who have voted "delete" could confirm their vote or update it to "keep" if they see fit. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I gave ten or more detailed and reasoned bullet points (with sources) which, taken collectively, supports this article as being notable and relevant to the Mountains of the Alps in a previous discussion just a couple of weeks ago. I was then surprised to find the discussion about it spilling over onto my own Talk Page. I offered both opposing viewpoints a reasonable way forward. I see little evidence that AussieLegend has looked at relevant mountain guidebooks from the area, and find this discussion both disruptive and unhelpful to efforts by the Alps Task force to enhance article quality.Parkywiki (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed looked at some guidebooks, most recently as Monday. I still find notability lacking because of the depth of coverage provided to the hut. Please also note that, as I had to remind Bermicourt, you can only vote once. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage and failure to state a claim of notability. Individual buildings are not inherently notable simply because they are verifiable. WP:GEOFEAT Parkywiki said: I don't believe that a quick look around Google should be the basis of asserting lack of notability. That is precisely why so many Wikipedia editors spend a great deal of time checking sources and providing accessible citations before producing even a stub article. It is very difficult to prove a negative (such as lack of notability); it is far easier to prove notability by providing citations to multiple independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of a topic. While the text is likely accurate in this regard, self-published works like Kühntopf's Juden, Juden, Juden are not generally considered to be reliable sources. The reliable sources mentioned, like guidebooks (which generally are highly reliable about realia, less so about history and folklore), do not have substantial coverage. In fact it is hard to imagine substantial coverage about most alpine huts, and they are probably better dealt with in articles about specific mountains, or ranges. A few alpine huts may have achieved historical importance. There is no evidence that this is one. Maybe your team of alpinist editors should rethink having a bunch of quasi-notable stubs about huts, and instead include the relevant information in comprehensive mountain and range articles. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These are no ordinary individual buildings. In each case they are the only one for miles around and are used by hundreds of climbers and hikers in order to access remote parts of the Alps. Perhaps the fact they are referred to as "huts" is a problem? After all a hut in English is normally nothing more than a shack. But in this case it's a translation of the German word Hütte which, here, is invariable a substantial stone building, marked on topographic maps, signed on the ground and listed in numerous publications. I could add dozens more references but that would be overkill even by English Wiki standards. And BTW these are hardly stubs. Many are full articles and there is every chance of expanding the others. Bermicourt (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That they are remote and/or used by a lot of people does not go to demonstrating notability. Nor does being listed in numerous publications. As I've alluded to elsewhere, hotels and motels visited by thousands of people every month are listed in multiple publications but that doesn't mean that they are notable. The word "hut" is not an issue here. Anything can be notable but that notability has to be demonstrated and that requires significant coverage in reliable sources. I haven't seen that coverage.

"I could add dozens more references" - You've been saying that for two years but so far, you've added only a handful. This article has only 3 references and they were only added in the past two weeks.

"but that would be overkill even by English Wiki standards" - At the moment the articles are suffering dramatic "underkill". If you've got these references, they need to be added to establish notability. Making claims without evidence does not help any of these articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting topic, 100-year-old building built by community fund-sourcing, known to climbers who would come from long distances. Sourcing found. Fits well within the type of article that Wikipedia can produce that most encyclopedias would not have the resources to produce, which is probably the real reason for the continued debate after the initial objections were satisfied. One Section in the article is without sourcing so should either be sourced or removed as per WP:V. I note in passing that the AfD nomination skipped the parts of WP:BEFORE which consider links from other articles and versions of the topic on other language Wikipedias, and there is no discussion of any problems with the article on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "there is no discussion of any problems with the article on the talk page" - I note that your comments skip the parts of this discussion where I have mentioned that I have been discussing the notability requirements with Bermicourt for more than 2 years. As for your comments regarding WP:BEFORE, if you actually bother to look at the links in articles, as I did before I nominated, most of them don't actually deal with the hut itself, they are generally just guidebook style mentions. Clearly, the verifiability requirements on the other Wikipedias are not to the standard that we require here. Fritz-Pflaum-Hütte for example, contains no inline references, only 3 external links. It's existence therefore cannot be used to assert notability here. To claim that it does is pretty much the first example at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've bundled multiple points in the reply, but I'd like to follow up to the part where you mention that you've had previous discussions with Bermicourt about notability. He states on your most recent archive page, User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_24, "I think you may be setting a bar for notability that is a little higher than Wikipedia demands..." I can confirm this to be the case and can document at least partly why. You've been using a dictionary definition for "significant", when this is a technical term defined by WP:GNG, that being, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly does not meet GNG, and has been pointed out, mere proof of existence doesn't meet GEO for a structure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that you've looked at the sources. Did you get access to Kaisergebirge by Hofler et al? Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC) How do we request a deletion review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.178.225 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chos3n[edit]

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

Unnotable musical group. Also, this article was created by the group itself, which has since been indeffed, and therefore this article has conflict of interest issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the band has won and had independent coverage of their win of the Urban Music Awards [24] which appear to be on a par with the Choice Music Prize or Grammis award which are listed as qualifications at WP:NBAND. Not at all happy with the run around AfC COI promotional editing, but on a overall view we keep stuff of interest to whiteboy geeks on much less-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft and userfy again if needed as I was actually one of the reviewers who made this unsuccessful as there simply enough sources and I'm simply not seeing anything else convincing. Notifying past reviewer Huon and also taggers Eteethan and Safiel in case they have input and aren't aware of this AfD nomination. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Upon writing the original article which had absolutely no reference to the 'Chos3n' Band website or promotional or sales information - and having copied the page format for artists of the same achievements wiki format, we felt that this article would suffice given we had been nominated for two major UK music awards.

whilst Wikipedia seems to be comfortable with it's issue with Systemic Bias, ( I note the person most offended by the 'Chos3n'post is in dallas so therefore in probability has little knowledge of the UK Music Scene) - I am not comfortable with it's systemic Bias - could I therefore ask that the editor(s) who have any decision making on the page proposed deletion have some relative knowledge in the music industry outside of the U.S. or other interest in Urban music . I am glad that Wikipedia hires editors such as TheRedPenOfDoom who are a little more studied in Cultural diversity

[[User talk:Chos3n|< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

81.140.67.187 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or weak keep: I checked the band's website where there is a biography section. Maybe the creator of this article can consider on improving the article with info from that section. Otherwise maybe consider deleting and drafting the article. Vincent60030 (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hard to work out where I stand here; this article in its present form is clearly inadequate, but otoh I strongly agree with The Red Pen of Doom about a broader bias here (c.f. the article about a German-only Marillion 3-track single, which is more than a comparable Loose Ends release would be likely to get and also more than a lot of important songs in German-language pop music get). RobinCarmody (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

either Mobo and Urban music awards are considered major awards or they are not. Criteria for musicians and ensembles: Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Can I suggest that if Mobo or UMA are not Major awards they would not have been allowed a page on your site. (Juliette Farrell - Chos3n) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC and clearly doesn't pass GNG. The comment above about having a wikipage denoting whether an award is notable or not shows the individual clearly does not have a good grasp of what notability is on Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It fails WP:NMUSIC. I copied it to Wikinfo so a copy of the article can still be found after deletion. -- stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 07:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a deletion review, as there has been similar artists listed historically. I believe this is systemic bias due to the editors lack of musical knowledge in this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palakkode Hassan[edit]

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

This person seems to be a non-notable personality. I could not find any significant works by this person and there are no direct quotations for his conversion. Simply an article about him in Tribune India does not suffice to have a page about him. Xtremedood (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this currently even seems to suggest minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched the net and, while it is true that this man is a writer, he is apparently not a notable writer. His religious conversion seems to be the only significant public event in his life, but the publicity was local, relatively minor and fast-fading. In itself it seems poor grounds for justifying a Wikipedia page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1, nominator does not advance a rationale for deletion. Note the nominator has also been sock-blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo ATV[edit]

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

The Avengers 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nom has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock. cyberdog958^Talk 06:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verita Bouvaire-Thompson[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is that she was the mistress to someone famous. Other than that, absolutely nothing. 1 mention on News, zero on Newspapers, other than her own book, absolutely nada on books, shockingly absolutely nothing on Scholar, only 3 hits to her obit on Highbeam. I would have prodded, but this article's creation was in response to removing this person from a "notable person" list (you can see a brief discussion here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited, and there's just nothing else to show her notability. I won't even suggest that this could be redirected to Humphrey Bogart since even the claim that she was Bogart's mistress is questionable. Bogart never admitted to it, his Wikipedia article does not mention her, and the issue has never been raised on the article's talk page. She claimed to have been his mistress in her autobiography, published 25 years after his death. The only sources in the article are the subject's book and three obits. The book fails WP:INDEPENDENT as WP:SELFPUBLISH, and the obits are likely largely based on the autobiography. Meters (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to even suggest better minimal notability. 03:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
'KEEP I am just getting started, but because I don’t want this article to disappear before I can post anything, I think a quick look at the various mistress categories already on wikipedia will reveal that in fact being the mistress of royalty, band Bogart was Hollywood royalty is notable enough for wikipedia.

Carptrash (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are at least some of the categories of mistressess that already exist on wikipedia. The women and men involved can't all be more "notable' than Thompson.

Category:Mistresses of Austrian royalty
Category:Mistresses of Bohemian royalty
Category:Mistresses of British royalty
Category:Mistresses of Danish royalty
Category:Mistresses of Hungarian royalty
Category:Mistresses of English royalty
Category:Mistresses of Scottish royalty
Category:Mistresses of French royalty
Category:Mistresses of German royalty
Category:Mistresses of Norwegian royalty
Category:Mistresses of Spanish royalty
Category:Mistress of Russian royalty
Category:Male lovers of Russian royalty
Category:Mistress of Polish royalty
Category:Papal mistresses
Category:Royal mistresses
Category:Mistresses of Edward VII
Category:Mistresses of Edward VIII
Category:Mistresses of George I of Great Britain
Category:Mistresses of George II of Great Britain
Category:Mistresses of George IV of the United Kingdom
Category:Mistresses of Henry IV of France
Category:Mistresses of James IV of Scotland
Category:Mistresses of James V of Scotland
Category:Mistresses of Louis XV of France
Category:Mistresses of Byzantine royalty
Category:Concubines
Category:Mistresses of Thai royalty
Category:Male lovers of royalty

Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can be drafted and userfied to your userspace if needed. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly notable. If Carptrash says it is worth his time and effort, it is notable enough for Wikipedia and will be developed in due course. Give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for AGF... complete compliance with BEFORE, as noted in the nomination - very little about her on the search engines. Only claim to fame is the unverified self-claimant of her relationship to Bogart. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Carptrash: I removed the main namespace categories from this discussion page that you posted, because they are for articles, but are not appropriate for Wikipedia namespace in the manner they were posted. To post categories here, they need to be formatted as [[:Category:Foo]], with a colon before the word "Category", so this discussion is not listed on the respective category pages for articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Northamerica1000: , I have them in the text now, thanks for keeping this . . ....legal. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that WP:Before has clearly been followed. Disagreeing an whether something is notable does not mean that the procedure has not been followed. No independent, reliable sources have been found to show notability, or even to confirm the claim that she was Bogart's mistress. And Carptrash, there's a big difference between Royalty and "Hollywood" Royalty. You need to show that Thompson is notable in her own right, rather than simply as someone's mistress. Bogart is notable, his hairdresser and possible mistress appears not to be. Meters (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See this custom search, which provides sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– This custom search provided results from Google Newspapers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North America Thank you for posting the multiple sources. Does this mean "Keep" or "Delete"? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize if you think there was a breach of WP:AGF. I am happy to credit that you may have tried to comply with WP:Before; but you did it poorly. You too could have clicked on "High Beam" and found the sources that are now in the article, and put them there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more obituaries calling her the "reputed" mistress of Bogart doesn't help. We already have several. They don't show notability, and I doubt they are independent of the subject's autobiography. Meters (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading you right, you say she wrote her own obituary!? That would be notable in and of itself! In any event, the sources posted by North America spike your concern. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that the obits are likely not independent of her autobiography. The distinction is clear. All the ones I looked at appeared to use the autobiography as a source. Meters (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the new list of possible refs. Two of them are blogs, the Washington post ref is merely a passing reference in a society page article, and the rest seem to be discussing a new book that mentions Bogart and Thompson, but apparently tiptoes around the issue. The NY Post says "Verita Thompson claims she had a longtime affair" with Bogart, and The Daily Mail makes it even clearer with "He [the book's author]repeats, cautiously, the ‘unverified account’ of the star’s hairdresser, Verita Thompson, who claimed to have had a 13-year affair with" Bogart. Hardly convincing, and again, clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT of the WP:SELFPUBLISHed autobiography. I'm not going to bother translating the 2 foreign sources. Meters (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - per reasoning of Carptrash, a quick look at the various mistress categories already on wikipedia will reveal that in fact being the mistress of royalty, band Bogart was Hollywood royalty is notable enough for wikipedia. I have come across various obituaries on her that talk of this Bogart relationship and I can't believe that all these journalists got together in a conspiracy to make up the story. My experience in writing many DYK biographies sees this article as being capable of being developed into an "interesting" biography that many would like to read about.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks Northamerica1000 for the formatting fix, and for the links to the custom searches. After reviewing, there's really nothing there to show this woman passes WP:GNG. On the news search there are 6 very brief mentions of this woman, along with 2 blog entries. The Newspapers one is a bit more, as it has two nice reviews of her book, Bogie and Me, but those don't equate into her even passing WP:NAUTHOR, and the other 4 are again merely passing mentions. A search for her book, also turns up a dearth of in-depth coverage. The best of the results was a mention in Stefan Kanfer's bio of Bogart, Tough Without a Gun, one of the better bios of the star (neither of which has their own article, btw), in which this individual is described as a "tireless self-promoter". If anything, these additional searches only served to confirm the results of my earlier searches. BTW, WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this instance, and the only other keep vote doesn't offer any additional sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person easily passed WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I'm uncomfortable with the quickness to delete new articles. This had been posted barely 20 minutes before it was tagged to be deleted. And it's been expanded since then. Before hackles get raised and heels get dug in, let's allow time for the article to be improved. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Mistresses of senior royal figures are notable because said figures were politically important and their affairs were therefore significant within the history of their countries. Actors and their affairs are not, whether you want to call them Hollywood royalty or not. Just gossip column fodder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When someone runs across Verita Bouvaire-Thompson in the gossip column and wonders who she was, I want wikipedia to have the answer. Also to claim, as you seem to do, that all mistresses were " politically important and their affairs were therefore significant" seems a bit of a stretch. Carptrash (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that. But many are notable in that context, which is why we have articles on them. If they're not then no articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Casablanca (film) seems to have a longer article than the Battle of Hastings, which says something about the importance of the gossip column of the annals of history, at least on wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's in any way relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was an unsuccessful attempt to show that these days pop culture (70,000 hits) is more significant (measured by size of the article and number of hits) than history (60.000 hits). People want to know about this stuff Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear from the citations she passes GNG. It doesn't matter whether any of us think a Hollywood mistress should be notable, the fact is, she was newsworthy and therefore notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. I do believe they've hit it that the issue here has more to do with the fact that this is about a hollywood mistress than anything else! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale provided for deletion. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usher's New Look[edit]

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

The Avengers 01:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @The Avengers:, what is your argument for deletion? You haven't written anything. Offhand the article is very unambiguously promotional to the point where it needs to be re-written entirely, but I am pulling up some sourcing like this article from Esquire. This Atlanta Journal-Constitution link is likely usable. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage at Atlanta Daily World of an anniversary party. Also, this and this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard, Madame Noir, Washington Post. I do think that this organization is likely notable and I've turned the article into a stub to remove the various promotional elements. However the question here is whether or not this could be summed up in Usher's article or should it have its own page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Usher's article in any case as this group may have gotten some coverage but it will be questionable if there's enough for a separate article as all of it will surely be connected to him instead, not about the group independently itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SK1, as the nominator makes no argument for deletion (or, for that matter, any argument at all) - and because they have now been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply RISC[edit]

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

I am unable to find RS to show this meets the GNG — Rod ^talk 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As already noted, this semi conductor manufacturing company fails the subject based notability threshold of WP:ORG as well as general notability. No WP:SIGCOV of reliable source, what I found is only press releases, mirrors and unreliable blogs. Coverage is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Jim Carter 06:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly even speedy material as there's nothing to suggest better here not even minimal general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southsound Radio[edit]

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

Small radio station with an orphan article. I can't find RS to show it meets GNG. — Rod ^talk 12:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources here [25] (Sorry internet's being an arse so can't link individually atm.). –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some radio station articles sometimes may actually be questionable but this one seems acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sick (EP). The consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article at this time. I redirected the page to the EP article per the nominator's suggestion, but this can be retargeted at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Have a Problem[edit]

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

While there are two other Beartooth songs that are legible to have their own articles (since they have entered the charts) I'm not seeing a reason why this song in particular has one. The only source it has just verifies that it will be a playable song on the new Guitar Hero Live game, the rest is unreferenced and even if it was I'm not sure how this makes it notable enough to warrant an article. SilentDan (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Fails WP:NSONGS, but still a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect where? The album? (And which one? It was recorded on two.) The band? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the single was released to promote the EP initially, so I believe that's where it should be redirected to if not the bands discography. 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentDan297 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. The additional time did not hurt, work on article has brought a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dživo Frana Sorkočević[edit]

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

See article talk page, concerns this individual does not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I previously did a Google Books search and found very little. I also now checked Croatian sites in general, and found practically nothing (a lot of false positives). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I finally found the correct name for the person, establishing notability wasn't so hard - they have an entry in the Croatian Encyclopedia at Sorkočević, Ivan Franatica. Keep --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical figure. From what is said here, I assume there will be other references--such as the ones in the paper listed as the source. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should mention that also had I tried to search for that paper, but couldn't find it. Sadly the journal's website only verifies the existence of the paper [26], there's no content. It's somewhat intriguing that they list the title as u prepjevu Franatice Sorkočevića, which is locative, and sounds like the proper name of the topic would be Franatica Sorkočević instead. And then I did a Google Books search for that name and 1701, and voila, [27] - it looks like the name used in our article could be a mistake, which is why it was so unverifiable. *facepalm* Now, that still doesn't obviate the need to investigate whether this new name is actually notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by all means as this historical subject would certainly have better sourcing somewhere, certainly not a deletion priority yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this was closed very soon after the last two comments, I took the liberty to undo it because I don't consider that proper procedure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned on my talk page, I won't contest this, but I will note that two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This page has been moved during the deletion discussion and is now at Franatica Sorkočević. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of this is clearly demonstrated by the sources found by User:Joy; which makes me wonder why this is still open. I was going to close it as "keep" myself, because a) the nom is the only delete !vote, and b) the lack of notability arguments seemed to have been based on confusions about the name. Then I noticed the contested close. Anyhow, consensus is IMO pretty clear here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly sourced. Hardly any got links from other articles to it. Only trivial mentions of this person in articles of the wikis where you might expect a full article of him (like the Italian Wiki). Huge improvements might save the article, but I don’t mind if it disappears. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: if someone inserts this as a source, ~~I'll withdraw my delete-vote too~~ .After comparing the two, and seeing striking similarities, I might say we got a copyright-issue here. See WP:COPYVIO.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my delete vote (nom). This has been a bit of a mess. I think the initial closure was incorrect or at least gave impressions of unfairness, but reopening without consulting the closing admin at first also isn't best practice. In any case, I think anyone with an entry at the Croatian Encyclopedia is notable and it seems sourcing in general is much easier now the subject's common name has been found, so I'm changing my vote to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to Fender Jazz Bass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Geddy Lee Jazz Bass[edit]

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

Non-notable issues of an arguably notable commercial product. These artist-endorsed versions are production models with slightly different options and features, endorsed by celebrity musicians for commercial recognition. Substantial and adequate references aren't available to demonstrate the notability of the products.

I'm also nominating these articles for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all three to Fender Jazz Bass. These are just signature models of the Jazz Bass and should be covered in that article's already existent "Signature models" section. IF the merge is limited to well-sourced info this should not overwhelm the article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I am not seeing the coverage necessary for a standalone article, nor are size issues significant enough to require a split. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above editors. Not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant standalone articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient unopposed consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Isaacson[edit]

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

The article is written in a self-promotional tone and appears more like a resumé than a reference article. Sources for this article are of unknown quality, since they are not completed bibliographic entries and do not contain URLs. They seem non-notable and non-reliable. Thus, article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even as incomplete references lacking the title and publication date of the source content, it's still evident that six of the eight "sources" are to local community weekly newspapers which are not widely distributed (or widely archived) enough to satisfy WP:GNG, while the other two are to her own books and thus get clobbered as primary sources. While the overall tone isn't as blatantly advertorial as I would have expected in something like this, it still pretty obviously tilts in a PR/advertorial direction — there's just too damn much entirely unsourced "personal life" detail of the type that, given the paucity of actual WP:RS coverage, could only be collated by knowing, or at least directly interviewing, the subject personally. Strictly speaking, the fact that there aren't convenience URLs present in the references isn't relevant, because we are allowed to cite stuff to print-only content like old newspaper articles or books, but the fact that they're local community weekly newspapers (as well as incomplete references that are still missing necessary details) does weaken them. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regrettably, sources for this post-modern nutritionist are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat -- I'm not bothered that there are not online citations; I'm bothered that even in her self-promotional Emily Isaacson Institute website and her many blogs on so many subjects she hasn't found better citations. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhuti Dharmananda[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Sources are not reliable, and subject has received no mention in independent media. Delta13C (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't any reliable sources included here and notability has not been demonstrated against WP:GNG. A lot of the article seems to have a focus on the Institute for Traditional Medicine, rather than Dharmananda himself. Many of the references that have been drawn upon for this article are from ITM's own website. WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony O'Donnell (doctor)[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable naturopath. Article cites two sources which are completely unreliable: one is a broken link and another a self-published source. Thus, article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vesanto Melina[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Sources claim she is co-author of a nutrition research article and ADA nutritional guideline position paper. This does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Subject does not have any significant coverage in media or online. Delta13C (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing considerably better than a few several passing mentions, nothing for a better notable article yet. Notifying Tokyogirl79, DGG and LaMona who frequently participate at these authors AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but rewrite. She's notable as an author, but the article is promotional. WorldCat shows 1215 libraries for Becoming vegan : the complete guide to adopting a healthy plant-based diet . Even for this area, this is a very high count, and there are undoubtedly reviews. I do some rewriting tonight. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to A.J. Allmendinger#Personal life, redirects are indeed cheap--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Kushnirenko[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable, and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Article mentions non-notable achievements, such as winning small-time beauty contests and graduating from chiropractic school. She was married to a notable NASCAR driver. Delta13C (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, reasons as per nominator. Essentially, hot girl, pretty face, famous for marrying (then divorcing) an athlete, not much to the story. My Canadian news sweeps did not turn up enough to merit inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by the references, her main importance is as the wife of an important athlete, and that's not sufficient, per NOTINHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete as mentioned by all above, searches found only passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much for an outstandingly better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A.J. Allmendinger#Personal life as, being mentioned there, it's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. And merge to the extent desired and appropriate. Sandstein 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Piazza[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely sourced from articles from a publication called Front Sight that the subject founded. Many of the articles cited in WP article are written by the subject. There is no indication that the subject is notable. Therefore, article fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Delta13C (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is somewhat slanted and not well written, the subject matter is notable, a cursory glance on google and google news reveals a number of articles from various news sources. Jab843 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search and found a few sources, but they do not cover the subject in depth. They seem to only quote him as a person with a known stance on pro-gun point of view, especially after a shooting: [28], plus this is the exact same text [29], [30], [31]. I cannot find any sources that cover subject in depth. Delta13C (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FrontSight Institute' or also simply delete as there's quite considerable coverage but it may currently be best to move it to the institute's article for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to FrontSight Institute. Horrid writing aside, it can be improved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and/or MERGE to FrontSight Institute. Everything in the article is directly or indirectly related to FrontSight anyway.--RAF910 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article Front Sight Firearms Training Institute may also not meet GNG for organizations (WP:ORG). It's also very problematic that the article cites low quality sources, like it own website and its facebook posts. Delta13C (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough...then we should discuss deleting the Front Sight article as well.--RAF910 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Front Sight. then discuss the combined article at afd . In most cases like this a single article is stronger; we should first construct the most sustainable article that we can, and then to see if even it is actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearly Gates (guitar pickup)[edit]

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

Non-notable model of guitar pickup. Substantial coverage is not forthcoming to establish notability; lots of incidental references, but nothing that clearly establishes this product meets WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devon hedge[edit]

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

Bulk of article, and all pertinent information is already included in the parent article Hedge#Hedge types. Not enough here for a standalone article. I prodded and was going to create a redirect afterwards, but the prod was removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, should this not be tagged with a merge request rather than deletion tag? I'm not an expert on the procedure. Anyway, this article satisfies the notability requirement by number of sources available. I do not think it should be merged to the hedge article, because it will give undue weight about this type of hedge (same goes for Cornwall hedge too). Hedges exist wordwide and we have two section dedicated to Cornwall and Devon. The problem here lies not with this article, but at hedge. Jolly Ω Janner 10:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added three more book references, which alone would meet the GNG, if the refs already in the article weren't enough on their own. Devon hedges are distinctive, and I've added a cited quote to that effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. The proposer's reason for wanting this deleted was apparently that the then current article contained no more than the section in the parent article. However, it's well established that the present state of an article is no indicator of whether it should exist or not – the real criterion is whether the topic is sufficiently notable, and nominators are supposed to do some research to check this before raising an AfD. Notability was surely satisfied by the time I'd added another source and removed the prod, but Chiswick Chap then gilded the lily (thanks!), and I've gone on to rhodium plate it by adding another.
I think that Jolly Janner's point about the problem lying with an undue emphasis in Hedge is a good one, though I haven't researched how many other named hedge types there are. We do need to ensure that this article talks about the specific Devon hedge type and not just ordinary hedges in Devon ("Devon's hedges"), of which there are also many kilometres. —SMALL JIM 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has adequate references and the term and its use are well known. There is no problem expanding on a part of a wider topic in a stand-alone article, particularly where providing detail in the main article might be seen as giving undue weight. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general feeling here is that the subject is legitimate, but the article we have now needs improvement. There were some arguments to move this to draft space, but I'd be hard pressed to declare a consensus to do that, so we'll keep it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish mythology[edit]

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

The entire content of the article is Original Research and just refers to Iranian mythology (see Zahhak, Kāve). The only source used in the article is a book by a journalist, the book is unscholarly, no sources are cited in the book. There is already the Origin of the Kurds and the Kurdish nationalism article, which is more appropriate, or the artcile could be moved to "Kurdish national myth". This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic origin and mythology are not the same thing - Kurdish mythology refers to things like Shahmaran. The Kurds are an ancient people, distinct from the Iranians despite many links, and I don't see why their mythology is any less notable than that of other cultures. Sources exist.[32][33][34] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing about Shahmaran in the article and Shahmaran is not specifically Kurdish, the folklore is found in many Middle Eastern cultures. Every human being is an "ancient people", but the earliest attested usage of Kurds meaning a concrete ethnic group is only from the medieval period. The Kurds enter the historical record at the end of the medieval period, during the Safavid era. It is not about whether their mythology is any less notable, but about the current content and status of the article, which don't justify to keep the article, also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology is up for deletion. Also those sources you link are either fringe nationalist sources or about current affairs, not scholarly works on mythology. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate/DRAFT/whatever-it's-called-now. This is an almost perfect example of an article which falls under WP:ARSSCOPE. De Guerre (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have these claims in support of the article:

Things like Shahmaran could be discussed in the article.
- But Shahmaran is not currently discussed in the article. And all those things (Shamaran, Zahhak, Kave) happen to be part of Iranian mythology, though it seems that other Middle Eastern cultures in the region, including Kurdish, share this folklore, with slight variations. So far we have no scholarly sources on anything that could be classified as specifically Kurdish mythology. These things should rather be discussed in articles on Middle Eastern mythology, Anatolian mythology or Iranian mythology.
The Kurds are an "ancient people" so there must be something. "Sources exist"
- Ancient people usually refers to Antiquity, with Kurds this makes no sense since they only enter the historical record in the late medieval period. What we need are scholarly sources on Kurdish mythology, which don't seem to exist. We don't even have historical sources for the Kurds prior to the the medieval period. The current status of this article does not merit an article, and it's not likely that scholarly sources will be found. The sources mentioned so far are not scholarly works on mythology, they are fringe nationalist sources or unscholarly works on current affairs.

This article could actually be part of a kurdification strategy of kurdish nationalists to claim Yazidi, Assyrian, Iranian and other cultures as "kurdish mythology". We have already enough articles on national mysticism on wikipedia, we don't need to invent new ones.--Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should point out that the nominator ~~was indef banned two days after this nomination. The matter is currently at is being discussed ANI under the heading at IP-jumping editor with an anti-Kurdish bias~~. Correction, the nominator claims to be entirely unrelated to the blocked editor who has an almost identical username and that their interest in Kurdish articles in this case is entirely coincidental. I've struck through my comments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Shawn in Montreal:, your first comment was basically correct. The nominator of this AfD was discussed under said header (now archived) and ended up blocked for impersonating another user. You were confused by the similarity of the user names of the impersonator and impersonatee. --Hegvald (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, what a confusing (to me anyway) little mixup two almost identical names and in such a narrow field of interest. Anyway, more importantly, I've no opinion on the real matter at hand, except that a) Kurds are clearly a distinct ethnic group and b) virtually all such groups have a mythology main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - a) Not so clearly, as the Kurds article says, the Kurds are ethnically very diverse. b) No, there is no article on Yazidi mythology for instance. Many of the mythology articles of even large groups redirect to other articles, like Ancient Mesopotamian religion, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, Folklore of the United States). --Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be clear, looking at (quickly blocked) OP's history, that this is a bad faith nomination. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although as I write this, to my surprise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist mythology has popped up, from a different editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have I accidentally wandered onto the weird part of en:wp? I'm tempted, based on this information, to change my vote to "snow keep", but I still think the article could do with ARS attention. De Guerre (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May I suggest to some to read WP:AGF again. It is unfortunate that some always have to resort to personal attacks instead of bringing rational arguments for or against the article.

The article could not be so innocent as it appears to outsiders, it could be part of an irredentist strategy of cultural appropriation by kurdish nationalists to claim Yazidi, Assyrian, Iranian and other minority cultures as "kurdish mythology". Examples of this strategy:

Some Yazidis expressed concern over forced assimilation into Kurdish culture and identity. Some have accused the Kurdish parties of diverting US $12 million reconstruction funds allocated for Yazidi areas in Jebel Sinjar to a Kurdish village and marginalizing them politically.[7] According to the Human Rights Watch, in 2009, "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".[8]
Kurds have annexed Assyrian, Yazidi and Shabak villages which are now under Kurdish Control in North Iraq.[5] In some towns, Assyrian politicians have been replaced with Kurdish ones.
Yazidi activists have reported that, since 2003, there have been numerous cases of Yazidi women being abducted and forced to marry members of the Kurdish security force Asayish. A report from Minority Rights Group International.[9]
A quote from a lawyer Kuryo Meytap in an interview: "The policy of Kurdification is operated for decades. The Assyrian history is systematically distorted, many Assyrian villages still be kept busy, the names of the Assyrian cities and villages are specifically converted into Kurdish."[13]
According to Hunain Qaddo, President of the Iraqi Minorities Council, Shabaks are currently undergoing a process of Kurdification.[14]
On 15 August 2005, Shabaks organised a demonstration under the slogan "We are the Shabak, NOT Kurds and NOT Arabs", demanding recognition of their unique ethnic identity.The demonstration came under fire from Kurdistan Democratic Party militia.[15]
In 2008, Mr Mirza Ismail, chairman of London Yezidis Community-Canada, accused the Kurdistan Regional Government of forcing Yazidis to register as Kurds, expanding Kurdish settlements in Yazidi regions, and forcing Yazidis out of Sinjar city.[17] --Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope you don't mind, I fixed the formatting of your big comment. AGF would also seem to imply not assuming cultural appropriation. I may not have been clear with the "snow keep" comment, so here's the thing: If this is a controversy about nationalistic politics, there is no possible way that we are going to sort it out in AfD. Good on you for being WP:BOLD, but I vote to take this more slowly. Start on the article's talk page. De Guerre (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is still that the article currently is a stub that is very poorly referenced and that no scholarly sources for "kurdish mythology" seem to exist. Google books shows about 10-20 books, none of them are comprehensive and scholarly works on mythology, the most relevant of them (about mythology, not about politics) is a book from Books LLC.

There are no scholarly sources, and the articles on Kurdish folklore, Origin of the Kurds, Kurdish nationalism, Ancient Mesopotamian religion, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, Middle Eastern mythology or Anatolian mythology could be expanded.--Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article definitely needs rewriting and citing, so I'd not oppose Userfy as the decision. I think the topic very probably deserving of an article, which doesn't mean that this sorry piece of uncited WP:OR is it.

David McDowall's A Modern History of the Kurds (I. B. Tauris, 2004) states "Various myths exist concerning Kurdish origins. The myth that the Kurds are descended from children hidden in the mountains to escape Zahhak, a child-eating giant, links them mystically with 'the mountain' and also implies, since the myth refers to children rather than one couple, that they may not all be of one origin. A similar story suggests that they are descended from the children of slave girls of King Solomon, sired by a demon named Jasad, and driven by the angry king into the mountains. Another myth claims the Prophet Abraham's wife Sarah was a Kurd, a native of Harran, and thus validates Kurdish identity within the mainstream of monotheism. There is a danger of outsiders dismissing such myths as worthless; they are valuable tools in nation building, however dubious historically, because they offer a common mystical identity, exclusive to the Kurdish people."

Also of interest is Kurdish Oral Literature (ed. Philip Kreyenbroek, 2010) which tells the story of Kawe the blacksmith connected to Shahname and the myth of Newroz, which I think others have mentioned above. There are thus definitely Kurdish myths to be discussed and cited in the article. On Shahmaran, that the myth is shared by the Kurds is I think sufficient for it to be included in an article on this topic, as long as the sharing is noted.

We have the choice, therefore, of rewriting and citing the article now, of userfying it, or indeed of the WP:TNT option of telling people to start over. Whichever it is, an article should cover the topic, and the current one needs to be replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the nominator is the previous ID of User:Hassan Rebell, who has been indef blocked for his misuse of Wikipedia to mass delete Kurdish culture articles for Turkish nationalist reasons, WP:AGF really no longer applies. As Chiswick Chap points out, we do have a choice: to delete or to keep it and improve. Per WP:DENY, I say we keep and tag for improvement, or userfy, close this Afd, and move on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear on establishing consensus, I also agree with userfy as a reasonable option. De Guerre (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this article is in flux now, the topic itself is objectively notable. Zezen (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Minretumomab (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine (125I) CC49[edit]

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

There are tens of thousand radioactively labeled substances in the scientific literature yet there are *very few* wikipedia pages devoted to a single, specific radiolabled substance -- in those cases they fulfill the criterion of notability. There are many thousands of radioiodine-labled substances in the literature but only one page describing a single example -- this page. But this single example does not warrant its own page. The subject of this page completely lacks notability: there is nothing distinguishing this particular substance from all other radioiodine-labled substances; there is nothing distinguishing this reagent from other biomedical reagents, particularly since this was tested and found to have no therapeutic value (Wikipedia cannot be a compendium of every failed substance tested); the work described is over a decade old and does not appear to have led to other significant findings or served as the foundation of other significant finding; and the unlabeled compound (CC49) itself is also lacking in notability such that there is no page for CC49. If there was a CC49 page, then this subject could be moved to that page. But there is a similar lack of notability for CC49 and there no page for that, thus this page about radioiodinated-CC49 should be removed from Wikipedia. Lapabc (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ (from creator). At least one independent source in article (Biotherapy, a book). 33 search results on PubMed, so it's used at least experimentally. It's also for sale, although I don't know whether / how frequently it is used in practice. It has got an ATC code (V09IX03 (WHO)), so at the very least the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point. Also, it's not true that this is a failed substance: while it failed as a therapy, it seems to work as a diagnostic agent.

Regarding the "very few" radiolabelled substances covered on WP: See ATC code V09 and ATC code V10 for counterexamples (including quite a few radioiodine compounds). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge into Minretumomab. Per this article in Nature, table 2, CC49 (uniodinated) = minretumomab. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The above comment contains incorrect information. Some of the comment involves irrelevant information and some disputed information:

(1.) The subject of this WP page, [125-I]-CC49, is not for sale. The product cited is for a different composition, a generic monoclonal antibody used for immunostaining. There are many thousands of antibodies for sale. The existence of a secondarily related commercial product is not evidence of this item's notability(Wikipedia:Notability). Instead, the lack of a commercial product of this item supports the conclusion of non-notability.

(2) The references on PubMed do not indicate "it's used at least experimentally." The newest reference is over 8 years old indicating it was of interest once upon a time ago. Because there are millions of references on PubMed, the existence of a few reference by itself cannot evidence of notability. In this case, the lack of recent publications actually supports the conclusion of non-notability.

(2a) In fact, there are many more references in PubMed to a closely related [131-I]-CC49 than there are [125-I]-CC49, yet there is no WP page on [131-I]-CC49 and nor should there be. The existence of this old literature is indicative of a dead end. And, similar to the point about old citations on PubMed not by itself being evidence of notability, the existence of a dead end line of research is not evidence of notability either -- there are too many millions of dead ends to be cataloged in Wikipedia, unless a dead end is *particularly* notable. Nothing currently indicates notability for any radioiodinated version of this antibody, nor for the specific [125-I] version of this antibody in the WP page in question.

(3) The commenter cites inclusion on the WHO ATC list, stating "the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point." Perhaps the commenter does not know how the system works but the existence of a composition on that list does not mean it was evaluated or validated in any scientific or biomedical way. To the contrary, the organizers of the ATC/DDD database are not allowed to make a judgement about scientific or medical utility, rather their role is limited to insuring the required paperwork is in order and that it contains the requisite data. Inclusion on the list is driven solely by those who bother to make the effort to submit documentation. These are entities that typically have a vested interest (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), e.g., a pharmaceutical company, although some entities may be impartial academics. The existence of a composition on the ATC/DD list by itself is not evidence of notability.

(4) The commenter's conclusion that "it seems to work as a diagnostic agent" is disputable. There are no [125-I]-CC49 commercial medical diagnostic kits in existence for any medical condition. There are no commercial medical diagnostic kits of the different, unlabeled CC49 antibody for any medical condition. There is no evidence of medical pathology laboratory procedures that currently involve the use of this antibody for diagnosis of any medical condition. It is true that a different, unlabeled antibody is for sale and that antibody can be used for research purposes. But that is not the same thing as being a diagnostic agent.

(5) The commenter is incorrect about "counterexamples" that indicate "quite a few radioiodine compounds." Ironically, the citations support the opposite, original critique that there are very few. Again, there are tens of thousands of radiolabled compositions, and thousands of examples of radiolabled antibodies. Yet the two citations the commenter provides only lists a few dozen. This is evidence of "few," not "many." Those lists contain many irrelevant radioistopes and irrelevant molecules that are labeled. As to the more restricted case of radioiodine, the commenter's list includes only ~9, most of them not [125-I]-labeled but are small molecules or non-relevant proteins labeled with different radioiodine isotopes -- only one is an antibody and it's [131-I]-labeled. Again, out of tens of thousands of RADIOLABLED compositions and out of many thousands of RADIOIODINATED compostions, the commenter's lists are evidence of very few, not many. This, in fact, supports the conclusion of non-notability.Lapabc (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that I changed from Keep to Merge? For ¹²⁵I-CC49 to be merged into Minretumomab, it does not have to be notable in itself. Apart,

(1)+(4) Of course the radioiodinated compound is not for sale. Radiolabelling is usually done immediately before usage. That said, you may be right that it isn't (currently) used as a diagnostic agent.

(2) Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. Also, notability is about coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many other substances are covered on PubMed.

(3) I know how ATC works. Again, this is about coverage ("attention") in reliable sources such as WHO's, not about whether it is of scientific or medical utility.

(5) I was refuting your claim about there being "a single example" of a radioiodinated compound. In this context, "quite a few" was meant to mean "more than one". Sorry for not being precise. And again, the number of substances not covered on Wikipedia does not establish non-notability (WP:OTHERSTUFF).

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minretumomab (= CC49). - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Minretumomab seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Basit Ahmad[edit]

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

No sources for anything suggesting notability, I couldn't find any on Google. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all citations on the page are unreliable (really some sort of bibliography) and my searches turned up nothing better as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also could not find reliable sources on Google. The current sources are only used to support the books he wrote, but the biography section is wholly unsourced (could have been BLP-PRODed). - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's worth noting none of the currently listed sources suggest even general notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boskop Primary[edit]

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

Traditionally, we have not kept articles on primary schools unless they past WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OUTCOMES Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced two-sentence article on a primary school. In the absence of any detail, there is not even a school district redirect for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DLow[edit]

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

~~Almost CSD'ed it, but it has one link. At this time, everything else looks like social media. WP:TOOSOON.~~ Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks too small to me. Hardly any info at all. Still is not adequate enough BLP or BDP for an article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is linked from Bet You Can't Do It Like Me, which has charted on the Billboard Hot 100. He has coverage in the Chicago Reader [35], and his "DLow Shuffle" got him attention previously and earned him an appearance on the Steve Harvey show so he's not just in social media. I know it's pretty bare now but there is enough for a decent article. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per above deletions as the article doesn't contain any information. Also if it links to an article it doesn't mean anything without sources and information.~~ Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the fixes that were made to better improve the article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, Qwertyxp2000, Adog104, I've made improvements, please reevaluate the article and possibly change your votes. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, now I am not on any side at the moment. For me now, I am now half-and-half~~, though~~ because the article may still have some repetition issues. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From those "DLOW" then "DLOW" repeating words coming around as I read the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't withdraw this late with mixed votes, but I struck my nomination. It is still weak with some of the youtube type links, but the Chig. Tribute article is solid, the blog is a bit weak but the Chicago Sun owns it and I assume has a little bit of editorial control over it, plus he did get on Steve Harvey's show, so in the end, I think the fixes bring it just past the bar, thus keep. Good job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foundathon[edit]

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

Neologism that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by the person who coined the term, I believe, since he also added it to the requested words page at Wiktionary, stating that he had invented it. Equinox (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wiktionary diff as evidence for my comment above: [36]. Equinox (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also could not find any reliable sources that discuss this neologism. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, just-invented neologism added to Wikipedia by SPA COI account for promotional purposes. Citobun (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sourcing offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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