Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 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 redirect to circumcision. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circum fetishism[edit]

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

Unreffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. I found one reference fairly quickly, it definitely seems to be a thing. (no judgement from me yet on whether there's going to be enough significant coverage for it to warrant an standalone article though). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of sources — Genital Cutting: Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements (book), US National Library of Medicine, Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice (book). I've added them in to the article; there's probably a bit more information that can be sussed out of them and added though. There's probably not enough out there for much more than a stub, but it does seem to be enough of a thing to be included here. Discant X 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .... Well hey whatever floats your boat!, I found a few booksunder "Circum fetish"[1] and "circumcision fetish" [2] (Unfortunately my laptop being a dick (no pun intended)). –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICKDEF. Carrite (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psst. I think you meant WP:DICDEF. Discant X 23:34, 10 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 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are not enough in-depth sources for an article, hence fails WP:GNG. Possibly the psych crews will produce articles in the future, in which case it could be considered WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to circumcision, or failing that delete. The article is basically one sentence, stating that circumcision is the object of a fetish (what isn't?). That's just not enough substance for an article. Sandstein 12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not dictionary. Not to mention it's a 1-sentence sub-stub. If you think there's an article that can be written here, write it in draft space and see if it flies. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 23:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fetish —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Circumcision article and Delete. And by merge I mean add one sentence on it since that's basically what this article is :P --Quadraxis (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It has 3,650 search returns on google books and way more on google news which is more than some other fetishes on wikipedia. Furthermore, the large number of times such a term or related concepts come up on blogs, forums and other mediums of online discussion makes it notable for me. Who here can honestly say they never heard of for instance the phrase "uncut guys" or "unsnipped guys" used in an objectified manner? Contrib raati (talk) 09:27, 26 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 arguments for keep seem to boil down to the basis of inherited notability, and as notability is not inherited this is a delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gale P. Elston[edit]

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

I fail to see notability here - mentions are in court reports etc but these are peripheral and not substantive. It reads like a biography of a moderately successful attorney who has had some C list celebrity clients. Nothing here qualifies for WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gale P. Elston is extremely well-known in the international art scene. Her clients include very notable and famous artists like Willem De Kooning and Andy Warhol, not “C-list celebrities” as Velella put it. Please consider the legitimacy of this article in context of the international art world. --Sachamcd (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)sachamcd[reply]

Too bad that you did not read the article or the sources. She represented neither Willem De Kooning nor Andy Warhol in those cases; she represented Pavia and Latamie, respectively. Nonetheless, notability is not inherited, it is coverage of her that goes to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Court cases are not ABOUT the person, although a news article about a court case could be. The news articles here mostly have mentions of her name (although at least one does not have that). None are about her, none have substantial information about her. Perhaps there is more coverage in specialized art press, but I was unable to find anything in sources I have access to. LaMona (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lawyers like journalists have their names appear frequently, but they generally lack coverage because no one writes about them. That is the case here, there is no significant coverage of her. Lots of the citations in her article are also to primary sources showing that she has done things, but failing to show that she has received much recognition for it. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTEBIO. I started this the other day when I fixed some of the citations in her article (the rest are still a mess), and given the plea to consider the international art scene, I searched various of Gale Group's commercial databases, including their "Pop Culture Collection", "Popular Magazines", "Fine Arts and Music Collection" and "Wilson Art Index". All I found was a mention of her as the attorney in a 2006 landlord-tenant dispute and a 1994 re-cap of the De Kooning case in The Times that briefly mentioned her as Pavia's attorney. All-in-all I find no particular claim to notability, and she fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable figure in intellectual property law.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you be specific as to what multiple independent reliable sources establish her notability in intellectual property law? She does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:PROF. She seems not to have publihed in the field, nor did I find any citations to her intellectual property law work. I did find that she has handled several legal cases involving intellectual property, but they are not cited for her work. The only academic entry I found was a thanks in a law review article for the materials that she had provided to the author. Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal. (1997). "How Fine Art Fares Post VARA". Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. 1: 1. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 26 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} 18:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Foronda[edit]

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

Much as he's been involved in lots of Funimation works, he does not have any starring roles. Denny in FMA is way low on the supporting characters list, and Marco is also supporting for Gunslinger Girl. Has not attended any major anime conventions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding not enough big roles and virtually no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as video game coverage in reliable sources go, I did not find any hits beyond a handful directory/cast listings, either as Jim Foronda or James Foronda. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to even minimally suggest a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:INHERIT. Most notable voice acting role is a middling sub-character for Fullmetal Alchemist. Borderline fancruft, deserves the axe. Jun Kayama 19:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the looks of things he appears to be a minor non notable voice actor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 23 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} 18:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Camus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search revealed a a few social media links like Twitter, Facebook, etc. and Daily Motion videos. It appears the NYT article is more about the movie than the man. Mkdw ^talk 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage of the actor, but there's a potentially notable racer by the same name. Could be something to persue for editors who understand sports notability better than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not even marginally notable and there's nothing to even suggest moving this to the film's article. Frankly this should've ended with delete at the first AfD. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 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 redirect to NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Mountain Cup[edit]

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

Minor league pro wrestling tournament with no significant or independent coverage. Only references are lists of results.Mdtemp (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ My search found no mention of these events except for lists of results or press releases from the sponsoring organization. Papaursa (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling The entire contents have this page of been copied so I'm changing my vote to a redirect. Looking at the contents of the NWA Smoky Mountain page does make me wonder about its notability, but that's a topic for another discussion. Papaursa (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of independent sources, much less significant coverage in independent sources. I didn't find any. Fails WP:GNG. I did find coverage of the high school soccer tournament(s) with the same name. See also NWA Smoky Mountain The Finale which seems to have the same infirmaties. Maybe someone could have a gentle talk with the creator and mentor him some? --Bejnar (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NWA Smoky Mountain is a well recognized territory for the National Wrestling Alliance tho solo pages may not be needed the information they hold can be merged with the NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling page if need be I have given sources for each event so claims of their not being and any "Mention" of them in a search is truly invalid if your searching correctly using proper key words needed too find something you'll find it JMichael22 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have now added the entire contents of this page to NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling, a redirect (not keep) now makes sense. However, the lack of significant sources for that page makes me question the organization's notability. Papaursa (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Organazation as been around since 2004 and is controlled under the National Wrestling Alliance as a territory and by far the National Wrestling Alliance is one of the longest running Professional Wrestling organizations in wrestling history NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling is a rebirth of Jim Cornette's Smoky Mountain Wrestling that closed in 1995 JMichael22 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the NWA of today is not the NWA of previous years, this is just a low level indy fed that pays for the name. It has nothing to do with Smokey Mountain Wrestling except being in the same area and taking the name, nothing links the two. It's a low level indy fed - Does not gain notabiity from paying for the NWA name nor using the same name as a previous promotion. If I pay the annual fee and start a backyard fed called "NWA Mid-Atlantic Wrestling" I don't gain notability because some previous organization was notable. Not sure if the main page even qualifies under the notability guideline, but that's not the discussion at hand, but I believe the main page may fail an AFD as well. MPJ-US 09:46, 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} 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayu Mukaida[edit]

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

Junior female wrestler whose article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NSPORTS since her success has only been at youth tournaments, which is not competing at the highest level. No problem with putting this in user space if she should become notable (say by competing at the Olympics).Mdtemp (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - junior athletes not normally considered notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Her only success, so far, has come at youth tournaments, which are generally not sufficient to show notability. As best as I can tell, the references are results and announcements--not significant independent coverage of her. Papaursa (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time a non-notable junior wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:53, 23 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} 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Lobov[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (a loss). Fails GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominatior.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight and doesn't meet WP:GNG when the article's only source is a link to his fight record on Sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 04:23, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious hiring[edit]

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

The phrase "conscious hiring" appears only in the sources by Margaret Graziano. Article appears to be an original essay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article - This article has been revised to include reference from Barbara Ashton and Horner and Associates to the term "Conscious Hiring." GRWT 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep article - Another example of a reference to conscious HR practices: Sue Elliot article. GRWT 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep article - Another example of a reference to conscious hiring: Kim Covert article. GRWT 04:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand River Walking Tours: I'm striking your keep votes - you're only allowed to make one "vote" per AfD. Also, your username gives off the idea that you're editing on behalf of an organization, so you'll need to change it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a touchy-feely nonce term to plug in one's book. Zezen (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A search for the term doesn't bring up much and while there are some similar hits like this, they aren't about the term as it's used in the article. On top of this, the article is incredibly promotional and even if it was notable enough for an article, would need to be completely re-written to pass NPOV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conscious deleting - appears to be promo for buzzword created by Margaret Graziano. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:16, 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} 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patxi's Chicago Pizza[edit]

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

trivial reviews and mention, none of which show notability DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This restaurant chain has received plenty of coverage from reliable sources. In addition to the sources that were already cited in the article, I also added citations to an article from Time Magazine, an article in USA Today, an article in the San Jose Mercury News, and an article from the San Francisco Business Times. This article definitely passes WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patxi's has received coverage not only for its food but also for a legal issue Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as properly sourced per notability guidelines. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-trivial coverage is from a few reviews in its local markets. Several of the articles (including the Time Magazine piece) only mention it in passing because of the "Home Alone" publicity stunt. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG based upon referenced coverage beyond the usual, trivial diner reviews and store openings. Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:12, 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 speedily deleted by User:Seraphimblade under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Tony Khan[edit]

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

BLP,A1 --Mr.Luther34 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunetra Choudhury[edit]

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

Media person with easy access to press and doubtful notability. All references seem to be from her publishers, NDTV and Hachette India, and not independent. Fails WP:GNG. PROD reverted with "seems notable to me". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her book Braking News, which was published in 2010, was reviewed in (among others) Outlook India, a very popular and pan-India general news magazine, and Hindustan Times, a very popular and pan-India newspaper. That makes her notable per WP:AUTHOR: "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Thanks, Biwom (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That work is neither "significant" nor "well-known". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Individual is a published journalist and TV anchor, not just an author. Easily passes basic WP:GNG across multiple sources. Article is weak and needs more work, but notability is adequate. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 16 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 18:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citations for the book coverage were given. She passes GNG, per Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis added). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First the Outlook piece is not a review, but a book listing, the description of which is usually provided by the publisher. The Hindustan piece is indeed a review, albeit brief. The current citations in the article do nothing to show notability (the most promising of which, another Hindustan piece, is a dead link). Searches turned up not nearly enough notable in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass notability guidelines, and since none of the keep !votes above deigned to share what they feel make this pass GNG (other than Biwom, who did give a single short source), have no other choice than to vote delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 26 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 one person arguing to keep didn't give any policy-based reasons to support their argument. If somebody wants to work on this, ping me on my talk page and I'll get it moved to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Haryana Chess Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Tagged for insufficient sources since March, 2015, none provided. Quick check for sources only reveals passing mentions, no real coverage. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better than some News passing mentions. Notifying past users David Biddulph and Justlettersandnumbers. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - This is a NGO in haryana affiliated by All india chess federation under the aegis of FIDE (world chess federation). All they doing is promoting chess. it has also been recognized by Govt of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.170.105 (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so but what's needed here is better coverage from sources such as news, magazines and journals. If wished, this can be drafted and userfied so you can work with it until actually notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just don't know what to think about this; we have this article, and another on Haryana Chess Association (now very understandably prodded by TransporterMan). Both appear to use the same logo, neither at the moment appears to be notable. But it may be that most of the coverage is in a language that I can't read. Pinging Titodutta for comment on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:39, 11 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 18:39, 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 merge to Free speech zone#On college and university campuses. No redirect. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Free Speech Alley[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fail WP:N. This is better in the University blog. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)~~ I have no prejudice against a Merge with Free speech zone#On college and university campuses. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a stand alone article; mention/merge in the university article or the "free speech zone article", Shawn links below. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for Louisiana and "Free Speech Alley" will get produce some results such as this Forbes article and this piece from student activist media FIRE. But it falls short I agree. But WP:PRESERVE would guide us to merge to Free_speech_zone#On_college_and_university_campuses, in which LSU's at times controversial zone is conspicuous by its absence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Free speech zone#On college and university campuses per WP:PRESERVE as suggested by Shawn in Montreal. Not notable enough for standalone article--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:04, 11 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 18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect, but merge content to Free speech zone#On college and university campuses. There can be a link there from LSU's page. Lacks significant coverage for notability, WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect, and merge to Free speech zone#On college and university campuses. I second the reasoning Bejnar provided. Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:18, 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. Article may be valid for recreation if released and subsequently the subject of more coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paatshala[edit]

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

No evidence this film is even under production. The source is over a year old, IMDB says the released date was March this year, and the film's website no longer works. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that an earlier version of this was created in February 2014 which was copied directly from the film's website. I deleted it as copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Asif Islam" "Faisal Roddy" "Paatshala - The Movie"

~~*keep~~ and encourage more improvement and sourcing from Bangaldeshi Wikipedians able to find and offer sources. The two sources currently in the article are significant and substantive. For a released film, WP:NF is met. For an unreleased film WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It hasn't been released and there is no evidence it is even in production or that it has met para 3. And it's not as though there aren't normally a lot of Englisg language sources normally for notable films. Of course it's not impossible but some proof it's in production would be great. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 12 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 18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question User:MichaelQSchmidt ⋅ can you please show how the existing sources meet paragraph 3 and evidence that this is in production? Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping User:MichaelQSchmidt. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the ping. Well... English-language coverage in Dhaka Tribune (1) and Dhaka Tribune (2) confirm that production had begun, the film's trailer has been released, and with sources either implying film release or speaking toward the film's songs, it is obvious that some filming has taken place. Those two authored articles sneak up enough on WP:GNG to make me believe it is reasonable to expect that some of these may speak toward the film, and under WP:CSB we should ask Bengali Wikipedians to look in, as an issue is that the word "Paatshala" (Bengali: পাঠশালা) translates as "primary school" and such a common search term makes searches difficult and so we need language experts to assist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{ping|MichaelQSchmidt]] Your sources are what is the problem for me. 13 and 14 months old, with nothing since giving any real coverage, makes me think that something's happened to stop the project. Their Facebook page[3] links to Redmark's[4] page which has this link as their website, but it doesn't work. Their website 'expired' last March.[5] Their Facebook page is still active though. The official trailer is dated December 11th last year.click on information. So all I see is evidence that a film was planned and some initial shooting was done, but no evidence that it was finished. The film's official website is also offline but the last wayback url is July.[6] Scroll down to see if anything at the bottom helps. Doug Weller (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MichaelQSchmidt:, sorry, wrong symbols. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no Bangaldeshi Wikipedians coming forward to assist, I can only suppose my hopes are dashed. The following is supposition based upon my film industry experience: as some filming took place and a trailer and music track were released, I presume such was done in the hopes to gain interest and funding for a (wider) release. So... in not having a wide release and its lacking coverage, a deletion is in order. @Doug Weller: The article can always be resurrected is this changes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelQSchmidt: Thanks. I didn't know you had that experience. I also searched hard so as neither of us came up with something ... Your keep vote is still there, but hopefully the closer will realise it's withdrawn. Doug Weller (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It is "struck through", not redacted.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, must be dirty glasses!. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT YET (films). If my translation from Bengali is right, as of 17 November 2015 the film was unreleased,[7] and as of 5 December 2015 it was expected to be release in February 2016.[8] Pinging regular Bengali-cinema contributor Md.altaf.rahman in case they want to weigh in with a better translation or information. No objection to draftify or userfy if someone wants to use this as the basis for a more complete article after the film is released (at which time it seems likely it will meet WP:NOTFILM). Worldbruce (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT YET (films). Thanks for the ping, @Worldbruce:. I made a quick search. A post on December 21, 2015 on the film's official facebook page says, "The production is complete over 2 months ago. We are still waiting for the release". They posted a youtube link of one of the film songs. I also found the movie trailer. Since there is an uncertainty in the release, my suggestion is to delete it. It can be recreated once it is out. #Altaf# (talk) 10:06, 25 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) 02:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Marcus[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG and sounds overly promotional of the subject. Of the 6 citations, most of the citations provided are not independent of the page subject (1, 2, 3, 4) and all are not from a reliable source (including 6, a youtube interview). My searches turned up nothing better that could improve the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 12 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 18:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches only found several links here and there at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, but nothing for a noticeably better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë D'Amato[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress and television presenter; written much more like a public relations advertisement than an encyclopedia article ("She has a deep appreciation for art, crafting and cooking that influences her examination of different cultures and enhances her ability to empathize with people from all walks of life" is a particularly fine example of the non-encyclopedic promospeak on parade here), and based entirely on primary sources with not so much as one comma of reliable source coverage shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent sourcing out there is trivial or non-RS or both. Subject generated a little heat by supposedly urinating inside the Great Pyramid for a staged reality show, but I found coverage to be thin on the ground. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 13 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 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I also considered simply redirecting but as my searches found only a few passing mentions here and there, there's nothing to suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guidelines. Even the reality TV story was sheer promotion. Zahi Hawass admits infamous reality show episode was fake. --Bejnar (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found some more sources: [9] and [10] from the King's County Register, and [11] from The Chronicle Herald. They're all about the same web series, though. I'm inclined to agree that it's probably too soon for an article yet, but it seems a bit more debatable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crissle West[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a podcaster, resting almost entirely on primary sources and blogs — and even the few properly reliable sources (Slate, Washington Post) just glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage which isn't substantively about her at all. She might be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, but none of the sources present in this version of the article contribute anything toward getting her over WP:GNG — and nothing here gives her an automatic "because she exists" inclusion freebie, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 12 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 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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 redirect to Miss Tourism International. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Gabriella Robinson[edit]

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

Winner of a minor contest with no claim of notability. I've added the references to her name on the list at Miss Tourism International. Per WP:NOPAGE her information is best presented on a list. Delete please. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tourism International, the only apparent source of notability for subject. There appears to be only trivial/routine coverage of this subject, in the context of winning the beauty pageant, which seems to have notability issues of its own. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:14, 17 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 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tourism International, as a single event person, no coverage other than as a contestant and winner of Miss Tourism. No separate notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:42, 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 procedural keep This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Heissler[edit]

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

Little real-world coverage. Almost everything is unsourced. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Dad!#Characters or the section's mirror List of American Dad! characters, as there is no independent notability separate from American Dad!. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says: While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" clearly warrants a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. --Bejnar (talk) 05:57, 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 procedural keep. This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Smith (American Dad!)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little real-world coverage. Almost everything is unsourced or sourced only from the episodes. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability separate from American Dad!, lack of independent coverage, certainly no significant coverage. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says: While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" clearly warrants a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. --Bejnar (talk) 06:00, 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 procedural keep. This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Smith (American Dad!)[edit]

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

No real-world coverage. Almost everything is sourced only from the episodes. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability separate from American Dad!, lack of independent coverage, certainly no significant coverage. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says that topics such as fictional characters in derivative article from fiction are generally not separately notable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is one of a mass of nominations opened by this editor after being specifically warned that they needed to open merge requests before opening an AfD. I see no evidence that they've even remotely looked into doing this, so I'm leaning towards making this a procedural close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 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 procedural keep. This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith (American Dad!)[edit]

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

No real-world coverage. Almost everything is sourced only from the episodes. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability separate from American Dad!, lack of independent coverage, certainly no significant coverage. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says that topics such as fictional characters in derivative articles from fiction are generally not separately notable. What I get on Steve Smith are youtube, imdb and other such directories, some blogging about his voice, and episode out-takes. Much of this article is already covered at American Dad!#Characters and List of American Dad! characters. --Bejnar (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is one of a mass of nominations opened by this editor after being specifically warned that they needed to open merge requests before opening an AfD. I see no evidence that they've even remotely looked into doing this, so I'm leaning towards making this a procedural close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 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 procedural keep. This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Smith[edit]

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

No real-world coverage. Almost everything is sourced only from the episodes. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability separate from American Dad!, lack of independent coverage, certainly no significant coverage. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says that topics such as fictional characters in derivative articles from fiction are generally not separately notable. What I get on Francine Smith are youtube, imdb and other such directories, some blogging, and episode out-takes. Much of this article is already covered at American Dad!#Characters and List of American Dad! characters. --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is one of a mass of nominations opened by this editor after being specifically warned that they needed to open merge requests before opening an AfD. I see no evidence that they've even remotely looked into doing this, so I'm leaning towards making this a procedural close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 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 procedural keep. This is one of several nominations made by an editor who has been previously cautioned about opening merge proposals before making AfDs for character pages. (26 nominations in all.) This is something that falls under the banner of cleanup rather than outright deletion, so this is going to be best handled by a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_characters#Merger_proposal. This is going to be a lump close, so this same message will also appear on the other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Smith (American Dad!)[edit]

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

No real-world coverage. Almost everything is unsourced. WP:FANCRUFT. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability separate from American Dad!, lack of independent coverage, certainly no significant coverage. There is no specific guideline for fictional characters, so the WP:GNG applies. There may be some collateral help from WP:NBOOK which has a section on derivative articles which says: While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" clearly warrants a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. What I get mostly on Stan Smith are youtube, imdb and other such directories, some blogging, episode out-takes, and tennis shoe advertisements. The only in-depth was ‘American Dad’ Episodes That Show The Evolution Of Stan Smith] from uproxx, although its coverage of Stan Smith is not separate from American Dad!. Much of this Wikipedia article is already covered at American Dad!#Characters and List of American Dad! characters. --Bejnar (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is one of a mass of nominations opened by this editor after being specifically warned that they needed to open merge requests before opening an AfD. I see no evidence that they've even remotely looked into doing this, so I'm leaning towards making this a procedural close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 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 page has been reverted to a disambiguation page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Afghanistan[edit]

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

Given Afghanistan does not participate in pageants this entire article is a farce. Zohra_Daoud is the only person ever crowned with the title back in 1972. We have a German pageant [12] in 2008 claiming to award the title to Zallascht Sadat, and an American Vida Samadzai who used the title to compete without winning it, generating condemnation and worldwide press for appearing in a red bikini. A Canadian also got some press for using the title elsewhere. The actual article that could be written about the title Miss Afghanistan might be pretty interesting, but the current version is completely unsourced, seems to be complete OR, boring, and likely nonsense from the first and only sentence "'Miss Afghanistan is a beauty pageant in Afghanistan." (it is not) through the blank lists, to the notes at the bottom which make little sense. TNT it and maybe someone will create a useful article. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to something like Version of 22 Nov 2012 (dab page listing 3 people who have been so described), perhaps adding a note to the effect that Afghanistan does not currently hold pageants. PamD 11:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted, keep to that version, then converted to an WP:SIA, don't discount it being better as a WP:DABCONCEPT but this will do for now. Against as a dabconcept (i.e. an article) unless there's sources. Widefox; talk 20:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either way regardless of what version as I simply see no obvious need for deletion here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 17 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 18:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SwisterTwister —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD and SwisterTwister's suggestions, and also troubled by a cleanup attempt the nom made that was abandoned to go to AfD as 'silly'; this didn't need to get to this step. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 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 Speedied as G7 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slenke[edit]

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

No indication that the topic satisfies WP:NCORP. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but from my perspective, we should keep this article as it is historical, informational and is about a company that people would like to know background on. User talk:Jedaaai ( Talk ) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows that it meets WP:CORP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on the same lines as articles for companies and products like Basecamp, Asana and Wrike. I would respectfully suggest keeping it as it provides historical and informational value. Hamza1011 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above opinion of keeping it, to me it adds value to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is providing valuable historical/background information about a commercial organization which stands out in its respected industry and used by many organizations. • Jedaaai (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We're looking for adequate evidence that it does stand out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion we do have adequate evidence that it does stand out. For example one of the referenced source is from The Globe and Mail, mentioning the company and the founder as up and coming of Ottawa in 2013. 2nd source that stand out to me is the article from October 2015 calling the company one of the highlights at the event that the article was about. I like this healthy discussion. —Jedaaai (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as several of the listed sources merely consist of passing mentions, press releases and otherwise are simply not in-depth third-party solidly enough for a better notable article. Also, the best I found were only press releases including republished so there's simply nothing for a considerably better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, I found this article to be useful. So Keep It —Layson (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — User:Layson101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Apart from a few sources that reference simple funding/routine topics that do not cover this company in-depth, there does not seem to exist any sources at all that would satisfy WP:GNG. The sources must be reliable, secondary, cover the article subject in-depth and be focused on the subject, and significant coverage must exist so that original research is not required in order to fully write the article. These sources do not exist, and hence this subject does not meet the required parameters per WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin (film)[edit]

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

IMDb knoweth it not, nor is it even listed in Chris Ohlson's filmography. Did he refund the $3265 he raised via Kickstarter?[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable movie and unverifiable if this movie was even made. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article form Indiewire says it was in post-production in 2010. So, it at least got that far. Also got this coverage in Filmmaker. But that looks like it's written by Ohlson himself, since it uses first-person ("I shot this film with my crew"). Maybe someone else can find better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 12 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 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this may actually be this movie called This Is Now - plot sounds similar and two of the names are the same, but with different roles. It's possible the original info was wrong or IMDB is wrong and it's so unnotable nobody noticed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess it's pointless to make this drag out longer than necessary. I can't even prove one way or the other that it was made, which is kind of a bad sign for notability. If someone finds better evidence of notability, the article can be recreated. But, no, it's not This Is Now; that film was influenced by Melvin, though. See that film's official site for details. On the other hand, Chris Ohlson's official website doesn't even have the word "Melvin" on it anywhere. I'm thinking it's an abandoned project that never got released. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I just can't find anything to suggest that this film exists or is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 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 Userfy.. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamehole Con[edit]

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

Insufficient independent reliable sourcing. Only one source (Badger Herald) comes close to meeting WP:IRS, and that article is, IMHO, routine event promotion news. Likely advert by con organizers/supporters. Article has been edited only by page creator (apparently the con director) and one single purpose account. PROD declined with no comment by an ip account with two edits. BusterD (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the page that I put up for Gamehole Con. I am quite the noob on Wikipedia and this is my first attempt at publishing a page... so go easy on me. I understand the primary issue with the article is its notoriety. My main motivation for publishing the article is to get it on this list: List of gaming conventions. My thought was, if the list exists, then the convention should have entry. I've been doing a little reading on the AfD Discussions and I understand that non-notoriety of other articles is not a sufficient justification for an article. WP:Listcruft is a problem. Weeding out the cruft is important work. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia and those of you that volunteer hours/weeks/months to this project. My obvious preference would be that you vote to keep the entry and I'll work to improve it. if you vote to delete I'd ask that you provide a little constructive criticism on what makes one convention notable vs another. Citations that don't come across as marketing are not easy to come by. Based on the other pages for game conventions that I have read the primary criteria seems to be that they have been around for a while. If the community decides to delete the article, I assume it will revert to a draft. I'll continue to update it and occasionally resubmit it for publication. Eventually I'll get it over the bar. Thank you all for your time (I know, TLDR) Hitchcock3 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) Welcome to Wikipedia. I have left a template on your talk page which should provide links to much useful information. 2) Writing an article about a subject merely because one would like the subject to appear on a list is quite putting the cart before the horse. List of gaming conventions is a page which exists to compile links to articles which already exist and subjects which meet the criteria for inclusion. The list is NOT intended to be a directory of conventions. It is not intended to advertise the listed events, though it may appear to have that impact. 3) Writing about a subject with which an editor has a personal connection (employment, marketing, ownership) is considered a conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged, especially by new and less experienced editors. 4) The most basic inclusion criteria, what we call the GNG or general notability guideline, requires pagespace be anchored with multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, directly detailing the subject. Mere mentions, such as that from Isthmus added today don't pass this test. Criteria for inclusion of events is even more restrictive. I'd encourage any new editor to thoroughly read the links I've offered in this reply. 5) It is an incorrect assumption that if this page is deleted, it reverts to draft space; it is instead excised from Wikipedia, as are all links to the page. If deleted, restoring it would be much more difficult (requiring a deletion review or a very generous closer willing to revisit the outcome of this procedure) than if it were voluntarily moved to draft space until it meets guidelines for notability and sourcing. I would be willing to withdraw this nomination if User:Hitchcock3 would be willing to return the page to draftspace (or user sandbox space) and improve it until it meets criteria for inclusion. I have nothing against Gamehole or its organizers. I'm merely defending the encyclopedia from pages unlikely to ever meet criteria for inclusion. BusterD (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 15 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 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't think that student newspapers can establish notability. What we need are articles published by professional journalists in sources that have editorial control, such as newspapers or magazines. I'm not too keen on the idea of its resubmission every time a blog mentions it, but I guess moving it to draft space is not too much to ask. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and move to draft/user space I find plenty of sources on the internet but none have much reliability. It's a close call in my humble opinion. The WISC-TV in Madison published this video which counts as one local reliable source [14]. I am willing to use the admin tools to work with Hitchcock3 - to copy/undelete the article to Draft or Userspace draft until more solid reliable sources are found if this discussion results in its deletion. Royal broil 03:27, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhda Pritam[edit]

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

A district-level law person. Too local and fails WP:GNG. All sources given don't contain any mention of subject beyond trivial coverage, so couldn't do a BLPPROD. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too junior to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:10, 11 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 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:46, 24 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} 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fali R Singara[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable coverage of this person. The only coverage I can find is on blogs, websites that don't seem reliable (ie mouthshut.com; "user-produced content") This was de-PRODed once, which is why it is here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Valid and should not be deleted as individual is one of India's well known radio celebrities. Checked the web and saw that he is also now an contributor to a TV channel where they have stated his radio contribution. www.zliving.com/author/fali . Also new article in the newspaper yesterday where he has interviewed Music Maestro Zubin Mehta for his radio show http://www.mid-day.com/articles/glimpses-from-frank-sinatras-life-career-on-singers-100th-birthday/16765161 - .--User:RaviK21 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviK 21 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> Valid info and should not be deleted. I listen to Singara on a regular basis each week - he is one of the most interesting radio personalities on Indian radio. Is well known in the Indian media for his journalistic work as well but it's hard to find info on him as he's known to be reclusive. He doesn't have a website, facebook, twitter account, etc and in a article on him I read that he's a celebrity who refuses to carry a cell phone. • Steele0714:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests better attention for better notability and improvement and this is best restarted when a noticeably better article is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 14:09, 24 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) 02:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Leonhardt[edit]

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

Non-notable. References rife with dead links, surviving ones include a blog by a local radio channel with a brief mention and list of singers that amalgamates indiscriminately. Google search only finds this wiki page, her personal website, and social media accounts. Thereppy (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing about this particular Leonhart on News, Newspapers, a few trivial mentions in Books, zip on Scholar, and the same lack of results on Highbeam. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, and nothing here to show they pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:06, 11 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 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as mentioned above, my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 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) 02:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Braatah Collective[edit]

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

notability, no references. RJFJR (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:01, 11 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 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete for now at best as there's hardly even much to suggest a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 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 redirect to AFL Britain. Fails WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Hawks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AFL Britain unless someone else can find some significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i have added further references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonehill (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the social media manager for the wimbledon hawks and I believe I have adding in numerous reliable sources now (including the Guardian and other local newspapers, plus multiple websites) and spent a fair amount of time bringing this up to standards Jasonehill (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please bear in mind WP:COI - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 18 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 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. At the start of the afd the article had no refs at all, now it has dozens. Unfortunately none demonstrate the club is notable. The club wouldn't be notable if it was in Australia, let alone the UK. Szzuk (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG since additions of references and feature in one of the top leagues in England. Flickerd (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "feature in one of the top leagues in England" is a bit of a red herring. Yes, they apparently play in the highest level Aussie Rules league in England, but Aussie Rules is a such an incredibly minor sport in the UK that I would imagine 99.999% of the UK population don't even know it exists. It's a bit like referring to the top cricket league in Mexico..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ understand the point on conflict of interest from myself but to say the club isn't notable would be a slight over exaggeration. Would it not be notable if a Australian club was producing players playing at International level in sport and playing in the top domestic league in the UK? The references, including national newspaper coverage, should point to the fact that it is notable in the sense? Jasonehill (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many stadium spectators does the club get for a match? How often are the club matches shown on television? What does NSports say about Aussie Rules Football? (On a procedural note I've struck your last keep). Szzuk (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think the above criteria should be a determination of notability, especially TV coverage, it doesn't mean the club lacks notability, there may just not be a market for it; under the same argument a lot of teams within the top state competitions in Australia wouldn't meet notability, that's why it's better to follow WP:GNG (which overrides Nsports anyway). Flickerd (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to disagree with you. That was of course a leading question because I already know the club has virtually no spectators and has probably never featured on television and never will - but it does point to a pretty big problem...this club doesn't pass NSports and so we're onto does this really pass GNG? Can you explain which of the references give this a pass on GNG because I'm not seeing it? They all look primary, trivial or of a routine nature. Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either AFL Britain or Australian rules football in England#Leagues and Clubs, both are reasonable targets and I'm not sure which would be preferable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- the latter is probably the better target. As far as I am aware Aussie-rules football is an amateur sport in England, so that we should not have articles in individual clubs. The lack of blue-links in the table of personnel strengthens my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 27 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Partnership Initiative on Urban Youth Development in Africa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

UN initiative without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Originally nominated in 2013, there was a lack of any significant discussion with only one editor providing an opinion to redirect to UN-HABITAT and mentioning this initiative at the target article. I don't believe that is a good choice as the parent article shouldn't just include random mentions of initiatives, nor should it become a laundry list of such material. Whpq (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect – I agree in full; the article does not establish independent notability. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:07, 11 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 18:14, 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) 02:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brayden Olson[edit]

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

Person is not notable; no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Going through the sources cited on the page (as of now):

The source here has a dead link, and appears to be some kind of press release
The next source is similar, and redirects to a page on window blinds (?)
This article is also a broken link, and seems to be from some kind of blog
This page has again been deleted, and seems like some kind of bio page or other primary source
This Fortune article is reliable, but mentions Olson only once, and includes no information beyond name and job title
This gaming page doesn't mention Olson at all
This magazine article (?) again doesn't mention Olson at all
This gaming site interview, again, doesn't mention Olson
This Seattle Business article is brief, mentions Olson only once, and again includes no information beyond name and title
This Xconomy article doesn't discuss Olson himself; he's mentioned, but appears to only be acting as a company spokesperson
This other Xconomy article actually does talk about Olson, but it's fairly marginal - there's only a paragraph or two, it feels heavily self-promotional, and Xconomy is probably of marginal reliability
This Huffington Post Article, again, doesn't mention Olson at all

There are plenty of other "sources" that discuss Olson - eg. here, here, or here - but they're primary sources, not reliable (eg. unknown blogs), not independent of Olson, or all three. Business Insider wrote an article about how Olson is "the real-life Christian Grey", but they freely admit they didn't do any fact-checking, and are essentially just re-printing whatever Olson told them. There appears to be a lot of self-promotion in these "sources" - eg. the Xconomy article says that Olson "has gotten national press", but their links point to a Bloomberg article that mentions Olson only once and in passing, and a New York Times blog post (not the New York Times itself) which again gives almost no information on Olson himself. Spectra239 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the only workable secondary source that is independent is the Business Insider article that leads with "We don't know if this really happened", I would say we have absolutely nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as my searches found several articles including from this year at News and browsers but perhaps simply nothing for a better notable article, the current sourcing is simply some coverage here and there. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 15 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 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits in WP:VG/RS's custom reliable source search pertaining to gaming, except this very passing mention. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 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 speedy delete. A7 no indication of importance, and G4, recreation of deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Radar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Confirm and echo with my PROD: "Searches only found a few passing mentions, hardly notable and WP:TNT at best if ever better notable.". I speedied this and was changing it to a PROD afterwards when I noticed the 2005 AfD so here we are. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:05, 11 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 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel Brothers[edit]

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

1. Please see extant conversation on Talk when this was accidentally mis-labeled for deletion under PROD.
2. Original claim: This article is almost entirely unsourced. It is written like a grade school paper with grade-school sentences filled with non-encyclopedic information. Notability is not properly established. The overall feel is that it is a vanity piece to have this article on here, if not outright NPOV or COI.
3. Apparently Morton Mandel has an article, but there would be no way to know that from this. The author didn't even take the time to add a link in either direction. The one paragraph here is scant in comparison to that article and adds nothing not already there about the one notable Mandel.
4. For what it's worth this article's creator, EthanDobres, has used the following socks: Ethanjesse, Ohiostatefan100, 65.189.198.128, and 65.127.85.11 to disrupt the deletion proceedings when the article was listed under PROD by merely blanking the deletion discussion.
5. When I first realized these two Ethans might be the same, I did a few simple Google searches on their shared history and don't want to spell it out because the banned user is a minor, but he also has an unambiguous relation to the subjects of the article, which confirms my initial first-read of this piece: that it is merely a vanity fluff piece with COI throughout and adds nothing to the encyclopedia given there is an actual and proper article on Morton. The fact that the author was seemingly unaware of this fact, actually goes to establish that the intent was not to contribute to the encyclopedia but merely to have one's own writing on the topic be published. JesseRafe (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the brothers are notable, each should have its own page. If they are not notable, then having them on a single page doesn't change that. LaMona (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:11, 11 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 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 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 procedural keep. This is one of many, many character articles that this editor has nominated for deletion in the last few months, 26 in total. They have been warned about doing WP:BEFORE and I do not see where they have actually done this with this article (or any of the others nominated since their warning in September) in the slightest. I'm closing this and opening a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_recurring_Futurama_characters#Merge_Mom, especially as I don't see any evidence of the purported opposition to this merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mom (Futurama)[edit]

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

There is very little real world coverage of this character; most of the article is made up of plot summary. Only three references are cited. Notability is not inherited. A merge to List of recurring Futurama characters could work, but there may be opposers. DJ Autagirl (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While the article is decently written, there's not enough sources and she's not even a main character or a character heavily referenced outside of Futurama. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of recurring Futurama characters#Mom. I think a redirect would be fine, but if someone wants to merge a little bit more of the info, that'd be OK, too. I'm a bit more accepting of top ten lists than other editors, I think, but when it's all just top ten lists, the coverage really isn't there for an independent article. It's not easy to do a search for a character named "mom", so it's possible my Google searches were restricted too much to find some of the coverage, if it exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is one of a mass of nominations opened by this editor after being specifically warned that they needed to open merge requests before opening an AfD. I see no evidence that they've even remotely looked into doing this, so I'm leaning towards making this a procedural close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CarProperty.com[edit]

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

does not meet wp:references and also WP:notability Shrikanthv (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received significant coverage in the Detroit News, New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hirolovesswords - Are there any more? What I found at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam were only trivial mentions, hardly enough for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - See "Real estate for wheels". York Daily Record. November 30, 2008. and Roy, Rex. "Recession Reality: Cheap Garages To Go With Cheap Cars?". The Car Connection. May 19, 2009. (also shown on The Huffington Post). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now currently at best as my searches found nothing better than a few other passing mentions albeit from major notable news sources at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the linked NY Times and Chicago Tribune articles are not "trivial mentions" or passing references they're articles about the site itself.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of trivial or passing mentions would be like these:[15][16]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received significant coverage in Road & Track, and Inman News --Carguy.Barnes (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of trivial or passing mentions would be like these:New York Post International Business Times--Carguy.Barnes (talk) 9:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. My gut tells me Delete, but I have to admit the NYTimes and Chicago Tribune sources meet our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:00, 26 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 (nomination withdrawn) LibStar (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Lovitt[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. being a barrister to notable people doesn't give automatic notability. Almost all of the coverage is about him representing someone not him as a subject. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is certainly in poor state, but he is one of the best known criminal law barristers in the country. A google search of his name provides an article about him by The Age and an interview by the ABC. Searching further finds other articles that examines (and criticizes) his work, not just who he represents. So I definitely believe there is enough to establish notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some articles about him.

Silvester, John (25 April 2015), "Bare-knuckle barrister", The Age

Bragge, Lily (9 June 2004), "In The Thick Of It", The Age

Whilst the cretin event by itself would be BLP1E there is other events where he is the focus.

Silvester, John (30 January 2000), "QC: Charges Were Payback", Sunday Age

Crikey

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westkreuz Frankfurt[edit]

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

As someone else has noted, this is a "non-notable interchange. Just like thousands of others." As I have noted as well on other articles recently nominated, "having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted." This was PRODed, but the creator of the article removed that tag without any reasoning for the removal. Imzadi 1979 → 12:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the prodder. This interchange simply exists. Nothing notable about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a highway interchange with a name. Not seeing the notability in this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill freeway interchange with no evidence of notability. Autobahn interchanges are all named; a name does not indicate there is nothing special about it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADD (x86 instruction)[edit]

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

Too detailed for an encyclopedia, this article is essentially a tutorial for a x86 assembly instruction. All other encyclopedic content can be merged. Delete or merge to x86 instruction listings per WP:NOPAGE. Esquivalience ^t 22:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article is available as I agree that it currently looks more like a guide. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with the article, but Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. As far as an encyclopedia goes, this topic is fully covered in the x86 assembly language article by the paragraph under Integer ALU instructions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Are you planning to delete the whole of Category:x86 instructions and its children too?

WP is not a paper encyclopedia. It is not limited by page count. The topic here is clearly highly notable (it is very widely covered by sources, which is our benchmark). It is significant to technology - if you're reading this, you're probably doing it via x86 ADD instructions somewhere. So just what is the policy-based reason for deleting this? "Not interesting to me" is not a policy-based reason. Nor is "delete until a better article is available" (we have a myriad such articles, far worse than this, and we can't get rid of them.

Maybe WP should never discuss any opcode, for any processor. But if it does, this would seem to be one of the most important, thus most justified for coverage. Not the most interesting perhaps; a commonplace ADD doesn't have the obscure charm of HCF (Halt and Catch Fire), it's not interesting enough to make me want to spend time writing it. But that isn't a valid reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Andy Dingley's question _Are you planning to delete the whole of Category:x86 instructions and its children too? The answer is no. (1) Afd is a piecemeal process, each article being evaluated on its own merits. (2) many of the articles at Category:x86 instructions are fine articles, like AES instruction set. The policy reason to delete is "What Wikipedia is Not". It is not a manual or a textbook, and that seems to be what this article is trying to be. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to not have this article. What policy does it break?

@Andy Dingley: You ask What policy does it break? The policy that it breaks is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please read it. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean by that the "instruction manual" clause. However that depends on whether you see discussion of an opcode as an instruction manual and nothing more. A programmer might see that, a processor designer certainly wouldn't. Even if an article text is no more than a limited scope at a particular time, we should judge deletion on the basis of the topic, not the article. Opcodes are broader than this. We wouldn't delete VW Beetle just because there's also a Haynes manual for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that a set of articles on opcodes are a reasonable thing, then that would be a strange set if it then excluded one of the most common of all. It would not be surprising if such an article hadn't yet been produced, but in this case it has. It's bizarre indeed to then set out to find arcane reasons why it could then be deleted. No-one gains from such a deletion. The encylopedia is not improved by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to ADD (computer instruction), trim down the x86 material and the pseudo navigation "template", and expand it into a general article about the ADD instruction on the lines of the NOP article. While Wikipedia doesn't need to provide a detailed reference manual for the x86 architecture, the instruction itself is certainly worth an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. There might be some things to say about add instructions in general. Various ways of handling (and signalling) cary, overflow, negative, zero, etc. Chaining operations to perform multi-precision operations. I suppose it's possible that such an article could be written, but I'm having a hard time seeing it. I could certainly see an article about typical modern ALU architectures (maybe this already exists?), but an article about a particular arithmetic operation seems unlikely to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a manual or texbook. There are other Wikimedia projects better suited to that. StarryGrandma's idea could work, but I'm not sure what content from this article would be salvaged. It's basically a manual for a specific x86 instruction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article contains history, which is not something found in a manual. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no history in this article, certainly there is no such section, and I didn't see any refernce to versions. Are you refering to the differences between processors? Lastly, manuals sometimes do include "history" in that they refer to different instructions that may be required when dealing with different versions, or in this case processors. --Bejnar (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Extensions were introduced with I80386 (32-bit operands) and x86-64 (64-bit operands)." My point remains that the objection of NOT MANUAL doesn't seem to fit. Unscintillating (talk) 09:32, 26 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trespass (clothing)[edit]

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

As with my PROD "Seemingly questionably independently notable and improvable article as my searches only found several mentions at News, browsers and Highbeam so far but none of it to suggest better here. I'm not sure if the parent company is perhaps better notable as I haven't closely search for that one but WP:TNT at best for this current article."., my searches found several links but simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article here and it is at best known for being connected to parent company Jacobs & Turner. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - clearly the owner Jacobs & Turner is less notable than the Trespass brand, which is seen on many British shopping streets. There are an abundance of good quality secondary sources about the owner, usually headlined as being about the brand. That said, I'm not sure whether Trespass needs to be merged and redirected to the owner (which doesn't yet have a WP page, as far as I can tell) or the other way around. There surely don't need to be pages about both. But simply saying that the brand is not notable but the owner is (whilst the owner doesn't have a WP page) seems counter-intuitive.

JMWt (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After I read this !vote I assumed there must be a Jacobs & Turner article, and I instinctively agreed that they should be merged (probably with Trespass Clothing as the surviving article, since it is the better-known name). But as you can see from the red link, Jacobs & Turner doesn't exist, and neither for the record does Jacobs and Turner. There is no article to merge with, as far as I can tell. Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the NOM says owner is more notable than the brand as a reason to delete but the owner doesn't have a WP page. A merged page should exist, not just deleting. JMWt (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search shows articles by the BBC, The Herald and Daily Record among others. This makes it quite obvious that the article should be kept. Neodop (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A retail chain with 150 outlets in the UK is notable in real life, and we should expect to find it notable here too. I was easily able to find a significant amount of substantial coverage from impeccable sources. Two obvious ones that aren't in the article: [17] [18] Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is an advertisement as it now stands. Perhaps it could be rewritten and merged with the parent company article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no parent-company article. Thparkth (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, only arguments for deletion are the usual WP:UGLY and the inaccurate WP:BEFORE by the nominator, and none of them are really convinging. Considering the current and the additional available coverage, it's just a matter of cleanup and a clear keep. Cavarrone 19:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it stands has issues - it needs improving to be more up to date and less advertorial - but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. The brand has 150 outlets in the UK and is notable as a retailer for that reason. Additionally it was the supplier of clothing to a major international athletics event. Neiltonks (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say being the official outfitter of a major international athletic event certainly tips the scales to notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found above. Obviously worthy of inclusion. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Hughes[edit]

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

I cannot see how this person satisfies Notability requirements. Most references are his own YouTube videos - none that are about him, as far as I can tell. I tagged this for PROD on 3 December and the original author, FiendYT, removed that tag saying "More reliable references can I be found. This person is a major figure in the Minecraft gaming community. A you tuber with 5 million subscribers should be notable enough for recognition. He has also worked with other famous youtubers, like Adam Dahlberg." I do not accept that for the following reasons:

Notability requires verifiable evidence, not just making vague statements that you think there are some references out there somewhere.
If this person is very well known then it should be easy enough to find detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources. Yet I can't find them - the best reference I could find is just a passing mention in this New York Times article.
Who he may have worked with, or be friends with, is not relevant.
The figure of 5 million subscribers is interesting, but is hardly a notability criterion by itself.

A couple of new references were added since then, one of which is a press release that does not count much for notability because - well, because it is a press release. So that leaves one possible actual reliable reference: the one from streamdaily. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot find in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Citobun (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (The best search term is "BajanCanadian" without the "The".) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as my searches found a few several links at News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a solidly better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every YouTube personality who exists, or who can be merely asserted (but not adequately sourced) as a "major figure" in some gaming fandom, or who's "notable" just for working with somebody else — and the number of subscribers a YouTube channel gets has absolutely nothing to do with anything either. An article about a YouTube personality lives or dies on the volume of reliable source coverage that can be cited to support it, and no number of subscribers on any social media platform confers an entitlement to keep a Wikipedia article that isn't supported by RS coverage — and with just one non-primary source, the volume of coverage shown here is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable YouTube personality who lacks adequate references to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 24 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} 18:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paperstone[edit]

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

Online office supplies retailer with 17 employees. Comprehensively fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All references are either to directory listings, the company's website, or refer to utterly non-notable "awards" from BOSS (British Office Supplies and Services Federation) and IDS which describes itself as "an interactive news and comment driven website that provides daily industry information, features and advice for the online dealer community". I can find nothing better. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox. It also has all the hallmarks of the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm, i.e. a series of minor edits to become autoconfirmed, followed by creating the page first as an implausible redirect and then returning a week later to turn it into an article [19]. The page was marked as patrolled [20] by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [21]. Note this is not to be confused with PaperStone (an equally non-notable building material). Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non notable, totally unsatisfactory refs. I considered using A7 , except that an AfD will give a basis for speedy on any recreation. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even absent the allegations of paid/WP:COI editing, the quality of article's references fall far closer to the "A7 threshold" than they do to the most generous possible threshold to avoid deletion at AFD. Also, the vast majority of companies with only £2 million of revenue in a year will fail WP:N. Any admin seeing this after it's been open 24 hours should consider a WP:SNOW-close if the overall circumstances fit. Also, if this winds up being speedy-deleted as a page created by a banned or blocked editor AND if there is enough participation at this AFD that it could have been deleted by an early-close of this AFD, consider closing the AFD as "deletion pre-empted by speedy deletion, but closing this AFD as DELETE to allow for speedy-deletion if it is re-created." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with davidwr. Unfortunately, Neil Palmer Photography, another article almost surely from this sockfarm and likewise hopelessly non-notable, was speedy deleted as G11 (unambiguous advertising) in the middle of its AfD which had 8 "deletes" and 0 "keeps". Not an optimal result. Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 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) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Purcell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm taking this back to AfD. This article was previously deleted back in August, but I feel that Purcell does pass notability guidelines.

She's held several notable roles on television, Cynthia Dagger in Emmerdale (28 episodes), Ms. Savage in Bernard's Watch (21 episodes), Candice Smilie in Waterloo Road (21 episodes), and Gina Conway in Tracy Beaker Returns (39 episodes) and The Dumping Ground (13 episodes). She has also taken part in several theater pieces and has been listed by name in most of the reviews. The only review in the article that doesn't name her is the one by the Edinburgh Evening News, which only lists one of the actresses by name. She did take part in the play as evidenced here. The play in question looks to be one of those works that only has about 3-5 people performing, so Purcell would have been in a major role.

I'm aware that some of the sources are local and that these are usually depreciated on Wikipedia, but she is mentioned in them and some of them specifically focus on her.

Overall I think that she would pass NACTOR and that the article should remain. However since this was previously deleted months ago, this will need to go back through another AfD per the discussion at DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging the people who took part in the prior AfD: @Davey2010:, @Tomwsulcer:, @SwisterTwister:, @CDRL102:, @Onel5969: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note about theater reviews: I believe that a review for a play should count towards notability if the actor held a substantial role, even if the performer is only mentioned in passing. One thing I've noticed with a lot of theater reviews is that they sometimes only mention people in passing - sometimes not at all - in favor of covering the play as a whole. I think that reviews in general should be usable if the source is considered a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl's sound and thorough analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl - Admittingly I'm not entirely happy with some of the mentions but overall I now think notability's there .... I feel kinda bad for G4ing it now.. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, don't be. It's better to be safe than sorry. Just because this situation worked out this way doesn't mean that every situation is like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tokyogirl did the yeoman's work here and it's clear that Ms. Purcell meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. In the face of those sources, it makes no sense to continue this AfD. It should be closed now, so as to focus discussion on the close calls where thought and research is needed.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and endorse a snowball clause close - good work by Tokyogirl79 in demonstrating the notability here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a big thank you to Tokyogirl's efforts! Jacona (talk) 19:50, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Factory[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Google search returned few reliable sources directly about the company. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 10:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the currently listed information and sources suggest even a minimally better notable and improvable article. Notifying tagger Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant independent coverage. No claim to notability in lead. Awards did not verify. Fixed two deadlinks. Fails the in-depth requirement of WP:CORP. Besides the lack of notability, the article is also blantently promotional. --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Larocca[edit]

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

This guy was a one-year mayor of a suburban council, elected by rotation among his colleagues, fifteen years ago. Most of the article is an unsourced BLP violation concerning his student days - it's effectively an attack page. It's not even accurate - there is no "City of Moreland Assembly". The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not even close to notability. Should probably be done quite quickly given the BLP concerns. Frickeg (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, Larocca was [named] in the Parliament of Victoria due to alleged connections with Tony Mokbel. The allegations were never substantiated but it may be significant that Larocca was then given a [right of reply]. Larocca has remained in the public eye due to his roles at REIV and his current role, as Chief of Staff for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Local Government and Industrial Relations in the Victorian Government. This has a direct connection back to his role in local government as a mayor. I understand your concerns that the article is currently a bit thin but I believe the article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. City of Moreland is not a small council either, the GDP of Moreland is larger than some whole countries. Alp watcher (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same issue that I was discussing with you on your talk page. Being named in parliament, or discussed in parliament, is not really enough - we would need secondary source coverage of that fact. Plenty of non-notable people are mentioned in parliament every day. Regarding Moreland, see WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a local councillor. Not even an executive mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced article, edging toward attack via the inclusion of unsourced negative information, of a non-executive mayor. A properly sourced and genuinely substantive article about a person at this level of political office could earn its keep under WP:NPOL #3 — but this article is neither of those things, and the role is not significant enough to give him an automatic presumption of notability just for being a mayor (we give that only to directly elected executive mayors, not to the ceremonial "everybody on council gets a turn in rotation" kind.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete being a mayor based on rotation of a small council does not grant notability. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether he held this position today or 15 years ago he is still not notable for it without adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 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} 18:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Kistauri[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, byt WP:PROF or the GNG I recognize I can not judge the importance or citations of the Georgian publications, but it's clear that they cannot possibly have has any influence outside that country, and the standard of notability under WP:PROF is international /

The other claims are so weak as to indicate there is likely to be not actual notability : "he is fluent in english" "He has attended trainings at [various notable institutions]. "He is a member of the American Economic Association"--but not a Fellow, and not an officer. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SPA not here to build encyclopedia but to promote this person. Google search turned up no secondary sources, fails WP:PROF based on scholar search as well. Fails GNG all around. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches apparently only found a few passing mentions here and there such as at Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a successful banker and now a successful academic, but I don't see any evidence of actual notability. In particular, prolific publication (claimed in the article) is not the same as academic impact (needed for WP:PROF#C1). And I don't see him in the RePEc list of top economics scholars in Georgia [22]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 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. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Changers[edit]

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

Local organization, with local references only. Such references are not reliable for notability , because they are indiscriminate, covering all local charities and the like, and tend to be mre notices or events, or promotional write-ups. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already contains two non-local sources (a book, and the Huffington Post) (three if you count the PBS feature that discussed the organization), and there are additional non-local references out there, including U.S. News and World Report; Marketplace; and U.S. Catholic magazine. In addition, it's well-sourced, neutrally written, and non-promotional. Dohn joe (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) I believe this organization meets WP:ORG. The program has received heavy coverage (significant coverage, not just passing mentions or notices of events). Already cited in the article is major coverage from six different major Reliable Sources in San Diego; that includes KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune which are regional sources. (The usual feeling here is that purely local coverage is not enough for notability, but regional coverage can be.) The program also got a mention from the Huffington Post, and I just added the U.S. News reference to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 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 keep. Though something from the 19th century, it seems to have received good enough coverage. The arguments for merging the content are reasonable but considering the facts about this typewriter and the presence of sources online, I lean on giving it some time to breath. The article certainly has potential and an expert in the subject may be able to expand it. The topic is certainly notable and some time in the mainspace can't hurt. If someone feels that it should be merged now or after giving it some time, it can always be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 04:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Typewriter[edit]

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

Not sourced nor notable. JDDJS (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article's not being sourced is, unless it's a BLP, not a reason for deletion. Sources need only exist, they do not have to be in the article (although they should be, and I have added too). As for notability, a quick Google shows that this was the first typewriter to be made using aluminum, which provides a potential claim to notability - it also does (as mentioned in the article, which is about the only thing it does mention) have a potential claim for high-current-value. Since typewriters are hardly my speciality I'll leave it to others to determine which of the additional potential sources that were turned up through that search may be reliable enough to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking probably merge with Typewriter. It seems to me that there is good media coverage that this thing exists, that it is rare and valuable. But I also read that it is an unusual design and was a commercial failure. So... well, I'm not sure if I'm really persuading myself either way. I'd like to see a page with more information about it, but I'm not entirely convinced the information exists. At the moment, merging with a page about the history of typewriters seems the best thing to do. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an interesting and reliably sourced model with distinctive features. Sources include Antique Typewriters, 'extremely rare' at auction, Collectors Weekly, IBM on Eugene A. Ford and his typewriter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep they were a thing, in their day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be linked from typewriter. Perhaps someone who knows how typewriters work could do that?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Typewriter There is not much here, and so far as I can see it is not capable of much expansion. More appropriate where it will be read at Typewriter. As to its independent notability, I do not think that much more can be found. Reviews of typewriters in the 1890s are likely to be in the kind of ephemera that are not preserved. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Typewriter is 70K already. I've mentioned it on Typewriter and linked from there to the Ford article. Difficulty in finding references is not a reason for deletion; university and historic society libraries are likely places to hunt. It is not a requirement of Wikipedia that references be easy to find. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not Keep, then merge with redirect given that it is a valid search term. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bushranger. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh Chauhan[edit]

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

Minor role in a TV show and winner of another non-notable reality show, claims no notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be TOOSOON. — Sanskari ^Hangout 08:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has received coverage only for the reality show Perfect Bride source. Nothing more than that. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and redirecting to the best known work would've been the next, as there's simply nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pandorum Technologies[edit]

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

Faulty A7 applied, will improve later Steppenwolf24 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the coverage seems to suggest even minimally better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Primary author requested speedy deletion on my talk page. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:18, 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 speedy delete as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Farmstead[edit]

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

While I'm not an expert on the NRoHP system (I'm British), this article seems to be a hoax. The cited link is actually for a different building in North Carolina. Google search turns up no building of that name except for this in a separate town 45 miles from Lawrenceville. (The construction dates are different so it is a not the building of this article.) I'm not familiar with the geography of New Jersey, but I see Lawrenceville is in Mercer County, and there is no building of that name on its NROHP list here or here or on the state government website. . Blythwood (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete - there isn't enough information here to determine whether the specific building exists. I've also checked the register as suggested by the NOM, and there seems to be several it could be referring to, but none seem to fit the information as currently appears on the WP page. I'm thinking someone has either got the name slightly wrong, or the wrong town/address or something. Trying to assume good faith, I'm thinking this is probably just a mistake (and/or a project someone started but didn't later return to and correct) rather than a deliberate hoax. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: - Yes good point. I'm afraid I forgot to leave a message on the user's talk page once I spotted this. Have contacted them to reassure that the article will be kept if they have sources. Blythwood (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. There is no such listing or historic district in Mercer County, New Jersey.[23] Nothing listed there in 1999. The bogus reference clinches it. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. I just tagged the article for a WP:G3 speedy. It is Foscue and Simmons Plantations with the names changed. • Gene93k (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I would concur. Searching on google brings up this which has the same content as this page. However when searching the source actual name for the historical place, it listed it near Dallas, Texas, not in New Jersey; which is completely a different place. The place in New Jersey seems nothing more than a local country club and may be an easy mistake. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 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 nomination withdrawn. There was a speedy tag attached to the AfD, but since there has been input from others I cannot speedy this. I'm going to take the speedy tag as a sign that the nomination was withdrawn, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Nkodo Dang[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for people (this being a politician, I assume). Notability guideline for politicians state that articles are notable if they are a politician or judge who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Doesn't look like Mr. Dang has received notable media coverage either. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Since he's the president of an international legislature he obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN. Why would you think he doesn't given you've just cited its provisions? He's also a member of the Cameroon Parliament[24], incidentally, so he qualifies twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close The subject is a prominent African statesman and is clearly deserving of a better article. The call for deletion is bizarre and I would recommend an immediate closure of this debate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other comments. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yes it needs to be expanded, but his election in May 2015 definitely give him the notability to have an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. While the article needs work, the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO. This doesn't have the snowball's chance of any other result, so going ahead and closing it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neumarkets[edit]

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

Four year old company with 6 employees. Comprehensively fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All references are either to directory listings, self-written profiles, the company's website, or do not mention the company at all. I can find nothing better. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox. It also has all the hallmarks of the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm, i.e. a series of minor edits to become autoconfirmed, followed by creating the page first as an implausible redirect and then returning a week later to turn it into an article [25]. The page was marked as reviewed [26] by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [27]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator says, the given references are an unconvincing set of user-submitted listings etc., and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Obviously unsatisfactory references--mostly linkedin. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Noticeably no signs even minimally of a better article, with none of the listed sources outstandingly suggesting a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even absent the allegations of paid/WP:COI editing, the quality of article's references fall far closer to the "A7 threshold" than they do to the most generous possible threshold to avoid deletion at AFD. Many references are about individual people, not the company as a whole. The vast majority of companies of this size will fail WP:N. Any admin seeing this after it's been open 24 hours should consider a WP:SNOW-close if the overall circumstances fit. Also, if this winds up being speedy-deleted as a page created by a banned or blocked editor AND if there is enough participation at this AFD that it could have been deleted by an early-close of this AFD, consider closing the AFD as "deletion pre-empted by speedy deletion, but closing this AFD as DELETE to allow for speedy-deletion if it is re-created." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with davidwr. Unfortunately, Neil Palmer Photography, another article almost surely from this sockfarm and likewise hopelessly non-notable, was speedy deleted as G11 (unambiguous advertising) in the middle of its AfD which had 8 "deletes" and 0 "keeps". Not an optimal result. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and Easy (Frank Sinatra 100th Birthday Tribute)[edit]

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

Promotional piece created to promote Mark Blake and group. Ireneshih (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source on this very new album is brief, routine coverage of the release, which lacks critical commentary. The artist is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, a non-notable release. Also qualifies for CSD under A9. Azealia911 _talk 18:50, 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} 18:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tymur Melnyk[edit]

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

Non-notable violinist, fails WP:GNG. Ireneshih (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions at News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found passing mentions but nothing to meet WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 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. Don't think there's a need for WP:SALT yet, but if it crops up again, there will be then. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee DuCote[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, Salt and burn. Ireneshih (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author of unpublished and self-published novels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if salt is needed, temporary to about a year or so should be necessary if at all, if there's ever a better notable article. The best my searches found were a few links here and there at News, Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything either. Other than some small local coverage, DuCote seems to have been almost solidly passed over by anything that Wikipedai would consider a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:AUTHOR and nothing found to lead to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 25 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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deskera[edit]

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

Non notable company, mere promotional piece. Ireneshih (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better than a few links here and there at News and Highbeam, and the currently listed sources are simply not convincing enough of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 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} 18:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Anita Derner[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a village with a population of 781. reddogsix (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely NN. Mayor of a village that doesn't even have municipality status in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To (talk) it's a solectwo simply meaning a locality with a municipalized government while niesoleckie means an unincorporated locality and this person is an actual politician elected by a few hundred people. That is more than Mr. Potato Head in Boise or the monkey in Rio did those cities' mayoral/municipal elections . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmallenberger (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My guess is the two examples you cited had substantial news coverage and adequate references to support notability. Being voted for by a few hundred people does not establish the individual as notable politician. reddogsix (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still unclear what examples are being cited. Although other stuff exists is a horrible argument, but here I do not see it argued at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete very minor nonnotable functionary. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to every person who was ever mayor of any place at all — we accept mayors of major cities as notable, but not mayors of small villages with populations in the mere hundreds. The latter kind can still get into Wikipedia if the sourcing and substance are really on point, but does not get a "keep because mayor" freebie just because she exists. And regardless of the place's size, a mayor always has to be sourced to media coverage which fulfills the demands of WP:GNG, and never gets to keep an article that rests exclusively on primary source verification from the town's own website (which is the only kind of sourcing that's been shown in this instance.) And for the record, while Boise's potato and Rio's monkey are mentioned in the articles where those things are relevant to mention, neither of them actually has a standalone article about them as an independent topic in their own right — so they're entirely irrelevant to the question of whether this article should exist or not, because they don't exist as articles either. Her name can be mentioned, unlinked, in Kleszczów, Silesian Voivodeship, but there's not enough substance, and no sourcing, here to earn her a standalone biography about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a place with under 1000 people. No other sources to suggest anything even approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 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} 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Stewart[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Player with undistinguished and ephemeral career in the low minors, no evidence he meets the GNG. Created by a SPA with three edits seven years ago, one of which was this. Ravenswing 21:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 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. WP:SNOW. No prejudice, of course, against a move to the proper name. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grombalia High School[edit]

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

A regular Tunisian highschool with nothing special. Also it's not one of the pioneer highschools like Pioneer School of Ariana. Helmoony (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a strong working consensus in favor of keeping articles about all legitimate degree-awarding secondary schools, except in cases of hoaxes and obscure home schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High Schools are considered notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If they are notable in jurisdiction, they're notable everywhere. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per longstanding tradition as expressed in OUTCOMES. We've been doing this for a long time, with lots of articles; if it's high school and it's verifiable, it can have an article. Jacona (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Cullen and Jacona's arguements, but Move to Grombalia Secondary School per their website here. John from Idegon (talk) 18:10, 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 keep. All High/Secondry schools are kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taïeb Mhiri School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A regular Tunisian highschool with nothing special. Also it's not one of the pioneer highschools like Pioneer School of Ariana. --Helmoony (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a strong working consensus in favor of keeping articles about all legitimate degree-awarding secondary schools, except in cases of hoaxes and obscure home schools.
Keep unless there is no evidence it exists. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds reliable proof that it exists. Just one good source will be enough. I could find none. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Arabic speaker, but this google translation of an arabic news source appears to show that the school exists. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 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 redirect to Smita Patil#Death and legacy. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Patil Documentary and Short Film Festival[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:EVENT The Avengers 02:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The event and documentary lacks notability and RS. Meatsgains (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I apparently found nothing better than a few passing mentions here and there. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Smita Patil#Death and legacy where it now has a sourced mention. This festival has coverage,[28][29] but as it is a recently initiated event, it does not have quite enough to satisfy WP:ORG. When the event gets more coverage, the redirect can be reversed and the article resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the target MQS suggested. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:45, 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 speedy delete. copyvio of its about page, [30] This could have be done by Speedy Deletion criterion A12,;it would otherwise be presumed notable, since it does grant academic degrees. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Hotel Management, Hyderabad[edit]

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

The only sources are the organisation itself and an advert for it. Doesn't meet the notability guideline. The article text is directly copied from http://www.ihmhyd.org/about_us.html. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 14 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} 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like copyvio. Neutrality^talk 17:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I was going to comment earlier but wanted to wait if others said anything, the article is completely unacceptable at this time and there's nothing to even suggest better notability and improvement yet so with that, it's best to delete and restart if likely later. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified of schools subjects as he has familiar insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 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) 02:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlashTHREE[edit]

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

This article has referenciness but the sources are not independent - for example, it relies for a claim of notability on inclusion in a festival called OFFF, but that appears to be essentially their own festival and the sources are OFFF's website and comments by members of SlashTHREE itself - circular referencing. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 20:36, 11 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} 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, I wanted to keep the page based solely off the number of what seemed to be "references". However, the reliable sources included are as Guy noted, dependent. Meatsgains (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 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) 02:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Hallman[edit]

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

Piano professor (emeritus) at Louisiana State University, which would normally be a good sign of passing WP:PROF, but there are only two claims to notability in the article (and none others found online): a CD of music of Dohnányi (on Centaur records, which is a good label, but only 77 library holdings) and a book Facing the Music with only 9 library holdings. I found an article in the Journal of the American Liszt society by him (search without the "H.") and there may have been a review in Fanfare (I can't access to know if it's a "Discs received" or a review). It doesn't look like a Musician or WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 11 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} 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here and there at Books and browsers, nothing else. It's interesting to note this hardly changed since starting. Notifying tagger Edison and also DGG, who I know is not expertly familiar with music, but he may still have some professors insight especially after what he said after the 1st PROD in August 2007. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG's decline of the PROD; probably 9 times out of 10, someone with this title at this level of the institution will be notable enough to at least warrant an AfD, but this seems to be the exception. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under WP:NMUSIC for one recording, and the book is in only a few libraries according to worldcat; no significant publications; Louisiana State lists him as retired faculty; I can't find a website. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 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) 02:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spit Like This[edit]

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

Non-notable band with an article containing more puffery than a very large bowl of Sugar Puffs, despite several attempts to try and clean it up into something manageable over the years. A search for sources brings up passing mentions like this, which describes them as merely "a local band" despite being around for 10 years. While we normally consider the potential to improve an article is sufficient, in this case I feel it really is best to nuke the thing and start again from scratch. (Disclosure: I discovered the article through Wikipediocracy's "Crap Articles" thread) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 11 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} 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I find this amusing, hahahaha, my searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions here and there, certainly nothing for a noticeably better article yet especially with the article's current sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked 4 of the refs and they weren't references, I will assume the remainder of the refs are of a similar calibre. Szzuk (talk) 18:45, 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 redirect to Comilla#Points of interest. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Comilla[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article which was created late November 2015 by Bangla1234 (talk · contribs) who has a history of problematic and disruptive editing. This particular article comprises of a list of 33 different "Places to see in Comilla", and no other context. While the concept of tourism in Comilla may be a subject worthy of note, this article offers nothing in the way of encyclopedic value. Recommending deletion without prejudice against a proper article being created at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has not edited since 2 December, possibly having changed username to another who is being disruptive. There are some very good images on the article, which could be moved to the tourist section of the Comilla article, then redirect the article to Comilla. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comilla, as it's a plausible search expression. The topic should be developed in the section Comilla#Points of interest, and only split into its own article after it is well constructed enough to stand on its own, and when it becomes too big for Comilla. I would recommend merge, except that there's no sourced text to preserve (the photos are on commons, so they'll remain available for any article that can use them). Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 25 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Nipu[edit]

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

Article about a musician which dose not meet the WP:Notability (music) i also fail to find any reliable sources about the subject. G. Singh ^(talk) 11:41, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches only found a few passing mentions so far (if it was even actually him) so he's hardly even generally notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are to independent reliable sources. MTV says "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks." IMDB is user-generated. News Hour says it "welcomes articles from the people who are somehow related to the news." Even if its op-ed is independent, it isn't significant coverage of Nipu, it only mentions something he posted on Facebook. Searches of the usual types found no independent reliable sources, so does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:17, 17 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} 00:40, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy (film series)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Lacks non-trivial support. Non-notable film failing WP:NOTFILM reddogsix (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page isn't hurting anyone, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol wasp (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. The subject is not notable and therefore is not eligible for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 18 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} 00:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the filmmakers well and I like that they've got the drive to make videos, but unfortunately the series just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time. The series hasn't received any sort of coverage in independent and reliable sources (reviews, news articles, etc) that would show notability, which is what it'd need to pass NFILM. I hope that one day we can have an article on the budding filmmakers and thespians once they hit the big time, but it's just WP:TOOSOON right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tokyogirl79 is kind and supportive, and I try to conduct myself the same way. But sometimes firmness is in order. This is an utterly non-notable film series, and the article should be deleted quickly. As for the comment by Patrol wasp, I could write an article about how wonderful my Boston Terrier Dexter is, cuddled up against me in his rainbow colored sweater on a cold night, and that page wouldn't hurt anyone, would it? Well, if I tried that kind of foolishness, it would hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia. There are thousands of places on the internet to chat about non-notable topics. I like Facebook. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not Facebook. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, quite hardly much for even a minimally acceptable article here yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 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} 08:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina (novel)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BKCRIT or WP:NOTPLOT. Strongest argument for keep might be point 5 of WP:BKCRIT, but I don't see a strong enough argument at Donald Harington (writer) that he's "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Discant X 01:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like it meets BKCRIT #1 (and GNG) based on reviews: Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, The Washington Post, and the NY Times. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 17 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} 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobbes Goodyear's research. I believe as well that Harington is a sufficiently important American writer to qualify under WP:BKCRIT #5, but given the reviews of this book in major publications we don't need to decide that here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I will see if I can add the sources momentarily. It's worth noting I actually encountered this article not too long ago and also considered nominating it eventually. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references cited above and in the article shows it meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK ie. two or more non-trivial reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ottie Cline Powell[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems like a number of books on ghosts and Appalachian hikes mention the subject, e.g.: [31], [32]. Not sure if this is enough to establish notability, but the sources do mention that his death was covered in newspapers at the time in the 19th century. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:56, 11 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} 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there actually may be a better article somewhere but none of this including the few several links I found at Books and News, and that's it, nothing else and this currently simply seems like folklore. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sawyer (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:ATHLETE JMHamo (talk) 00:46, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 13:20, 11 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} 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrestled in a non-notable independent federation, and had a dark match at a WWE houseshow. Not nearly enough notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the article could certainly be better and I'm not seeing even any minimal signs of minimal notability and improvement from both the article and its listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clickatell[edit]

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

Deleted multiple times as spam, re-created a few months after the last deletion by yet another account with no history other than adding basically promotional articles. The "sources" amount to directory entries and press releases, some mention the company only as a namecheck. This is a tiny company and there is no evidence of any in-depth coverage, not least because what it does seems to be entirely generic. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 11 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} 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best my searches found were only trivial passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly even minimally better for a better notable article. Notifying past user Dodger67 who also commented about the article's notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sourcing is simply too thin to pass either CORP or GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 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} 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Roberts (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject of the article meets WP:NHOCKEY by playing in KH Sanok, top level Polish professional hockey club. Ueutyi (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ueutyi: The Polska Hokej Liga is not listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. He fails WP:NHOCKEY.Joeykai (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: He played for several AHL teams, which belongs to the list, does that meat criteria? I do not know if he played for 200 games or not, but he is a professional athlete and why do you bother deleting the page? Ueutyi (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ueutyi: Well, WP:NHOCKEY states that for Fully professional minor leagues (which Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment defines the AHL as), notability requirements are "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender)" or "achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star)." Sam Roberts has played 5 AHL games and has received no honors. So, again, he fails WP:NHOCKEY. If he doesn't meet the notability requirements, then his page should be deleted. Joeykai (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Remember that if someone fails WP:NHOCKEY (or any other 'refined' notability standard) but passes WP:GNG they are notable. Not saying that's the case here, just that "fails ((WP:LOCALN))" shouldn't be used as a stand-alone deletion rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems a bit of an hole in WP:NHOCKEY/LA to not say anything about the Polish league - given the national team is at least as good as some of those mentioned. I know there is not a direct link between leagues and national teams, but it makes me wonder if this just reflects the interests of those involved in WP:NHOCKEY. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to how much coverage the various leagues get. It is very unlikely that every player that plays in the Polish league would meet GNG, which is what is needed to meet any of the criteria in NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Ice Hockey leagues get reasonable coverage in Polish media. JMWt (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The league might, but does every single person who plays only a single game in the league get coverage to the point they would satisfy GNG. I am sure some players probably do, but the question is does it give the 99.999% probability of meeting GNG to all players who have ever played in the league like the NSPORTS criteria try to adhere to. I find it hard to believe that players who play 1 game in the Polish league get articles written about them in depth to meet the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a different point. The point you made above was that the NHOCKEY standard is based on the coverage that the leagues get. I'd venture that the coverage gotten by the Polish league is at least as much as some of the other national leagues mentioned. JMWt (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bad wording on my part I suppose. When I said league I meant the players in the league. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, if you feel it is, by all means make the argument at the pertinent talk page. I presume you've some evidence to support the argument? You speak as if you're familiar with the Polish-language media. Ravenswing 03:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Meh, I dont really consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment a valid notability reference, since it is a subjective 'Quality' ranked list of what the Ice Hockey Wikiproject think. EG the top level leagues in many countries are classed 'minor' leagues despite the players playing professionally at the top level in their country. As a comparison - if the football fans at Wikiproject Football was dominated by Germany, Brazil and Italy fans, and they got together and said playing in the Premier League in the UK was not notable enough, that reasoning would be laughed at. If a player is playing in the top level division of their sport professionally (as opposed to amateur) in their country, that should qualify. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list isn't based on quality of play. It is based on how much the sport and its players are covered in sources. While a league might be the top league in its country the sport might not be covered much or at all in that country. To meet #1 of NHOCKEY every single player in that league would have to have likely been covered in multiple sources. That just isn't likely in the case of Polish hockey. Heck it isn't the case in the majority of countries with national hockey teams. Remember, the only thing that truly maters is if GNG is met. That isn't the case for lots of players that play in top leagues in various countries. Only leagues where that is like to happen at a 99.999% likelihood are listed where they are. This works just like the rest of WP:NSPORTS does. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death's example is a false equivalency -- that reasoning WOULD be laughed at, because it's moronic. To continue with that example, however, no soccer fan in his right mind would include the Premier League, Serie-A or the Bundesliga in the same discussion with the Allsvenskan or the Ekstraklasa. Still, as DJSasso correctly points out, we judge leagues based on the coverage. Take, for instance, that the junior leagues appear on the list, possibly the only case in all of sport where teenage-only amateur leagues are accorded any measure of notability at all. Yet those leagues are highly popular in Canada, and receive a great deal of press coverage. In similar fashion, we accord a level of presumptive notability to United States top collegiate leagues -- which receive a good deal of coverage -- and none to Canadian collegiate hockey, which doesn't. Nor is this decision solely ours: the degree to which this Polish league is obscure is mirrored in the fact that the Internet Hockey Database, the standard website to which the WikiProject links all player stats, doesn't get information from it.
As far as whether you believe NHOCKEY/LA to be a valid reference or not, it is of course a free encyclopedia, and we won't force you to believe anything you don't wish to believe. Ravenswing 01:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the speedy above, this player does not meet NHOCKEY as the Polish league is not considered to meet the first point of NHOCKEY. And in doing a search I am not seeing anything that shows he meets WP:GNG either. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that this obscure player meets the GNG. Ravenswing 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DJSasso. Deadman137 (talk) 05:51, 23 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.