Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 June	2 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. O'Connor

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

This appears to be an entry for someone who never actually existed, and rather embarrassingly has been sitting on Wikipedia for several years. Angmering (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the article was true then this person would show up in the extensive material on the history of the BBC. But I can find no evidence of them. (Don't be tricked like I was originally by the Google Books result here. That's extracted from Wikipedia.) Tassedethe (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent hoax. No reliable sourcing to evidence existence, let alone notability. Creator was indefinitely blocked in 2012. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely bogus. I know enough of broadcasting history that I would know his name if he had been real. The name produces no responses on the BBC's Genome website, which decisively confirms his non-existence. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No sources at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hex Empires

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

WP:N, not a notable title. No reliable source available to prove notability AdrianGamer (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it should be "Hex Empire" instead, based on the sources, but either way, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colum McGuire

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a vice-president of a student organization, and resting almost entirely on sources which just glancingly namecheck his existence — only source #1 passes the "substantively about him" test. He would have to satisfy WP:GNG to make it over our inclusion rules, because the role itself does not entitle him to a notability freebie, but the sourcing that's been offered here fails to demonstrate that GNG is met. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the explanation given by the proposer. Subject of the article is mentioned by name in some good sources, but the coverage relates to him speaking in his NUS role, rather than providing support for him passing WP:GNG himself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator sums it up nicely. Article is pure promotion. Web searches turn up social media and university blogs/sites, news searches turn up more brief statements by the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ifoh

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to established the. Subject WP:Notability. I found this source in the article but does not even mention the subject. I would have love to nominate it for speedy deletion per A7 but the subject of the article claimed to be a founder of Young African Leaders Forum (YALF) (considered for deletion as well). I will also consider the article creator for WP:SPI soon. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is basically an advertisement for Ifoh, written in an adulatory tone, conveying very little verifiable information. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Almost speedy delete G11. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Fails WP:G11. –323MU (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has not advanced a valid rationale for deletion. Discussion regarding the article in terms of getting opinions can occur on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Anderson (karate)

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

I believe the article to be notable. I want the opinions of others. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have nominated this article for deletion, yet you believe this person is notable. Please explain.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Brazilian Journal of Chemistry

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

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no indication of notability. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant hoax — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Erasmus and St. Elmo's

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

No references and unable to confirm it exists. It is categorized as fictional island and there is a note on the talk page that someone was unable to verify it. Text does not say where it is located making it even harder to attempt to confirm. so, unreferenced, orphaned, and with a long term 'insufficient context' tag. RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a hoax. There is a little island with this name in a Venice lagoon (Isola di Sant'Erasmo). It certainly was never colonized by the British nor did it have The Saint Erasmus Times. This has been around since 2006 and should go into the Hall of Shame. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "fictional island" appears to be from a non-notable defunct pirate role-playing game, Shiver My Timber, according to this 2006 ad [1]. Perhaps this goes more to advertising than hoax, but it should go either way. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this game doesn't appear to have achieved any notoriety beyond livejournal fandom, and there's no mention of it being fictitious in the article, its inclusion in WP seems rather hoaxy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - Blatant bullshit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List Nina Dotti performance

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

This is a list of theatrical performance art performances, deceptively described in its body text as an episode list (as if this had been a television series), which was originally created relying entirely on a single primary source for referencing. Something like this would have to be based on reliable source coverage, not the performance artist's own website, to merit Wikipedia's attention. Some blog and press release sourcing has been added since, but the article still contains exactly zero genuinely reliable sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. And furthermore, even the main article about Nina Dotti itself is poorly referenced, and tilted noticeably in the direction of a public relations advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article — so her basic notability hasn't been properly established, let alone the separate notability of every individual performance she ever gave. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bearcat; there isn't anything to show that this is any more than a list of performances by a barely-notable artist. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even for clearly notable theatre actors we don't maintain lists of performances. There's no indication this list serves any useful purpose or meets the standards of WP:LISTN. Huon (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Hall

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

This appears to be a biography of someone completely different to the page title. It also has no references whatsoever and has very little content. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 16:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY. As the article has been updated to read, Hall has signed a professional contract with Plymouth Argyle. However, he has not played for them yet, and it's not clear if he'll play for the first-team squad immediately, or if he'll play further ball at the academy level (or on loan to a lower-level team). At any rate, until he has a fully-professional cap, he's not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, just the fact that he's been signed does not make him notable. But if we delete this one, shouldn't we delete the almost identical article on Louis Rooney, another just-signed player? ubiquity (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Jimfbleak

Stuart Matthew

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

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

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

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

No indication of notability - having 100+ subscribers is pathetic! Laun chba ller 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nonentity I would have speedied if it hadn't been AFDed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try speedying it anyway.--Laun chba ller 07:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A vanity article, obviously coming nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I agree it could have been speedily deleted, but since it is here, and since it has already been twice deleted under a different title, we may as well let this discussion take its course to settle the matter once and for all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This article is useful for Stuart Matthew's fans, I agree that this is under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements.The article is also mentioned in few other article and Stuart Matthew is enough famous to be discussed about. So, I think it should not be deleted. "MarshallDSJ" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— MarshallDSJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MarshallDSJ is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Undeletion This should not be deleted at all.Firstly, I also thought that it should be deleted but when I went through that and links provided in the article was under satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm against of the deletion of this. "WikiLoverTeam" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— WikiLoverTeam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WikiLoverTeam is now blocked as a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of JackWinslow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Useful Article "JackWinslow" (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JackWinslow (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)— JackWinslow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Almost certainly sockpuppets here, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackWinslow‎. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three accounts that !voted "Undeletion" are Technically indistinguishable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's clearly no evidence of notability for this amateur YouTube singer. Mr Potto (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: This is more suitable for Wiktionary, if in fact it would survive there; I will create a wiktionary entry for it and see. Tornado family is the closest I could find of terms in Wikipedia, and that has a loose definition where the tightly clustered members could be referred to as "sandwiches" but might contain more than two cyclones; so this is really a colloquial term used for media attention capture. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone sandwich

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

Non-notable neologism. This is what Wikipedia is not. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cyclone Lam or Cyclone Marcia. I don't think this qualifies as a neologism. It is more like a metaphor, or one instance of a common meaning of "sandwich", which one dictionary defines as "something resembling or suggesting a sandwich... a plywood sandwich". If it was a neologism, to get its own article it would need secondary sources discussing the term itself, as opposed to simply using it. But it does seem to have been used fairly often in news reports about the 2015 cyclones in Australia, so perhaps the newspaper reference could be merged to one of those. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ____ sandwich is just a popular idiom to describe x between two y. Does not look to pass WP:NEO. If it was coined and used to refer to particular historic cyclones, no opposition to mentioning it there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - if there is anything not in the main article referenced above, take new info from this article and put it in the article that exists on this topic.

Bfpage |leave a message 21:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NEO. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery

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

Non-notable professional organisation. Fails WP:ORG - third party sources do not establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites 9 sources. 3 of them are press releases. 3 of them are from their own website. 2 of them are text books published by them. 1 source is the website of a similar organization bragging that it offers the only certification recognized by them. I did an (admittedly brief and superficial) search for independent sources and did not find any. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find two medical articles that mention the society, but one is just an update of the other:

Dermatol Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):425-7; discussion 427-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.01059.x. Core competencies for hair restoration surgeons recommended by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery. Puig CJ1, Beehner ML, Cotterill PC, Elliott VW, Haber RS, Harris JA, Martinick JH, Niedbalski RP, Rose P, Rousso DE, Shapiro RL.

Dermatol Surg. 2006 Jan;32(1):86-9, discussion 89-90. Core curriculum for hair restoration surgery, recommended by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS). Puig CJ1, Epstein ES, Epstein JS, Farjo BK, Kabaker SS, Leonard RT Jr, Mangubat EA, Ross M, Rousso DE, Shiell RC, Stough DB, Straub PM, Unger WP; International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery.

LaMona (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the two sources I mention above as textbooks published by them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are journal articles, not textbooks. However, they aren't third-party sources, since this is information provided by ISHRS itself. I do find occasional mentions, but the literature is generally behind paywalls. I don't find enough to keep the article. Delete LaMona (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naaz Joshi

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

Tagged for notability concerns. This seems to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not the news. Most of the sources provided do not provide significant coverage and use exactly the same wording. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 00:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being on the cover of a magazine is not a claim of notability that satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself. She might potentially qualify for an article on the basis of whatever achievement made her a person that the magazine would want to feature on its cover — but this article as written just rests her notability on the magazine cover itself, and doesn't even begin to suggest what the "why she made the cover" part of the story would be. And even the sources are all just blurbs which just describe her as a "popular transgender", without actually including any nouns to suggest what she's popular for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually write and source a substantive article which actually makes a substantive claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, and most of the sources are just copies of each other. WP:NOTNEWS as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out above, it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E, backed by essentially just one source. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel Africa

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

Too soon, not notable. Article for Tare Munzara is also suspicious. Fuddle (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, way too soon. Article even has "soon to be aired in 2015" Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Active Network, LLC. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPICO Sports

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

I'm not sure this company has received enough good third-party coverage to establish notability. My searches here, here, here and here found nothing outstandingly significant and notable. As an alternative to deletion, this can be moved to Active Network LLC, the now parent company since February. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added to support notability. Andystarnes (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:CORP, through lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Active Network, LLC. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farleon

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

My searches found no good coverage to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actor of 2014

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is true that one news paper is publishing the ratings, but it has been calculated on a month-to-month basis and comes from 60+ publications, 250+ TV channels, 10000+ cinema halls and millions of users across the Internet, making it one of the most scientific and comprehensive celebrity ranking system, so please keep the page. So it is eligible as a perfect resource for star ratings. Please check the adequate references added and please remove the deletion nomination. Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be all well, but the fact is no one has deemed it worthy of commenting on, and our policies require at least a grain of notability, and in this case there's none, references within the article are nothing more than a regurgitation by the same publishing house. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but there's no reason to spin off into separate articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating, no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Number 1 ranked Bollywood Actress of 2014

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, it is true that one news paper is publishing the ratings, but it has been calculated on a month-to-month basis and comes from 60+ publications, 250+ TV channels, 10000+ cinema halls and millions of users across the Internet, making it one of the most scientific and comprehensive celebrity ranking system, so please keep the page.Rajeshbieee (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Please check the adequate references added and please remove the deletion nomination.Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your keep, please don't !vote multiple times, just state/clarify your position or address the comments. Back to your points, there is no reference to this, except within their own websites, no one else has found it worthy to comment on this ranking. In addition, even the title of this page is wrong, this is a Times Celebex ranking, not a list of numer 1 anyway. —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but I see no reason they can't be covered together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of number 1 ranked Bollywood actors of 2013

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

WP: UNDUE coverage of one newspaper's ratings Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and the other three, they should all have been combined to a single nomination. The Times Celebex ratings have received no traction except in in-house publications of the ToI group and some fansites. Nothing RS except their own coverage of this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. It does look like sources justify the Times Celebex ranking in general being notable, but I see no reason they can't be covered together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary CONTENTFORK from Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating, no stand-alone article warranted. Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Times Celebex: Bollywood Stars' Rating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EpicFiveTV

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

Page fails the notability of living persons' biographies. Contains one source, which alone does not establish article's notability. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though I am a big EpicFiveTV fan, it definitely fails notability issues. We don't need an article about every person on YouTube. Rayukk (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's famous and notable on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.224.115 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PNC Bank. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wallet

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

The entire article only consists of a few sentences, and largely hasn't been updated in years. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not, as I expected, the general concept, but a specific app. Probably if we have a more general article somewhere we should redirect to it, especially given that between phone transactions and bitcoin it's an area that is hotting up, while the current subject of this article seems to have been left behind. Artw (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: - Maybe a blurb could be added to the main PNC article. Even so, Virtual Wallet is more than just an app, it's a combination checking/savings account that PNC offers. I don't think it needs its own article, though, since it's just one of many accounts that the bank offers. Dnywlsh (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this can't be kept, it's better mentioned at PNC Bank. My searches found several results here, here, here and here but it may essentially be best known for PNC. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: - I just don't believe that it's notable enough to warrant it's own page. Maybe a sentence or two in the PNC article, if that, since it's really just one of the many accounts that they offer. Dnywlsh (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge existing content to PNC Bank and then Redirect to Mobile payment on the strength of The Wallet Wars: The Battle Rages Over Virtual Wallet Technology ("If you aren’t familiar with virtual wallets, a.k.a. mobile payments, the basics are quite simple."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PNC Bank. Otherwise non-notable app used by one bank. Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to PNC Bank. An app has to be more prominent to warrant its own article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Tournassoud

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

I'm hampered by my lack of French, but I was unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - The best my searches (News, Books, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) was a few results at Books. It's imaginable that better sources may be French, archived and offline. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Yes, this is a dismal non-article with a sorry history (starting with plagiarism). But unlike the celeb, wedding and other photographers who infest Wikipedia, this bloke is notable. Exhibit A, a book consisting of 150 plates from his collection, published in 1920 (when photobook titles came out at perhaps one hundredth the rate they come out today) in a trilingual edition and with a preface by Marshal Pétain himself; exhibit B, a booklet accompanying an exhibition of his work held at Musée Nicéphore-Niépce thirty years after his death; exhibit C, a book devoted to his work, presumably accompanying an exhibition held at some Ain departmental museum (perhaps subsequently renamed, but presumably one of these) forty years after his death. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Add to Hoary's sources a passing mention here (fr). That person was apparently not a professional photographer, but an army officer with a strong passion for photography, and he was affected to the propaganda services of WW1 because of that (Service Photographique et Cinématographique de Guerre - Photography and Filming Service for War). Note, however, that this section drifted towards art for art as opposed to propaganda.

While I think the coverage would be enough for a random photographer, the publication of his works in 1920 was most likely helped by the army or government as a patriotic stunt ("exhibit A"). There have been exhibitions of his work in minor museums but that would be on the verge of notability (especially considering the kickstart he got due to war). Friend of the Lumière brothers, but notability is not inherited. Tigraan (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Yes, I'm sure that the 1920 publication was to a considerable degree a patriotic stunt, but Tournassoud was the person chosen for it. You (Tigraan) suggest that Musée Nicéphore-Niépce is a minor museum. Of course it's no Orsay or Pompidou, and one person's major can be another's minor; still, its website suggests that it's not negligible. (And if I were lucky enough to be near Chalon-sur-Saône, I'd want to pay it a visit.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about the museum being "minor". Nonetheless it is devoted to the history of photography, not as photography as an art, so I am not convinced it grants much notability on "artistic" grounds (e.g. WP:NARTIST #4b/c/d).

On the other hand, the museum that made this is probably that one (it must be in Bourg en Bresse and there are not that many options). While smaller than the Nicéphore-Niépce, it is an art museum, so I think that is a better claim to artistic notability. The problem is that the sourcing is uncertain. Tigraan (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Pathological Society

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

It exists and is long-standing, but I could not find enough to verify that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - Considering this is an organization from 1844, oftentimes it can be found notable if archived and offline sources can be found. The best my searches found was a few Books, Newspapers Archive and one mention. @DGG: Considering you're in New York, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep almost certainly a notable historical society. Third party sources are needed, but they should be available--early US medical societies have a substantial secondary literature. The first part, of course is a copypaste, but not copyvio since it's old enough to be securely PD-US,. It is not however acceptable style to use a direct quotation of that sort for the major part of an article--the place for such material is Wikisource. It therefore needs to be rewritten.And so information about the society since 1876 needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per DGG's rationale, and also given the wide range of references to its journal and meetings that can be seen in a GScholar search, indicating the actual significance of the organization. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per above - seems like a plausible way of improving the article, someone would have to actually do it though. Artw (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per all the excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. Article may be recreated by any administrator upon request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Matrige

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

He seems to have had some success, but I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. French article also seems of dubious notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the original page was created without header (subst in step II missing), I added {{subst:AFD2}} and used the initial nomination statement to fix the page. GermanJoe (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barrott

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

No indication of notability. Two of the references Chubbles added when they de-prodded the article don't even mention Barrot; the blurb on AllMusic is the only one that provides any detail at all. That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about Barrott. Huon (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Future Loop Foundation. I don't know why the article is located at this title; the musician is better known by his DJ handle than his real name. I believe the nominator's confusion over the lack of coverage is due to there being comparatively little available in musical sources under the name "Mark Barrott". (Also, this is not a shared account, for the record.) Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth sources to justify keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now includes an Allmusic bio and an Exclaim! review (both international press), as well as two reviews from UK outlets, and a Pitchfork Media longform about Ibiza music which includes an entire section about Barrott. This, particularly with the last one, ordinarily would hurdle the sourcing/exposure requirements for bands, based on past precedent. The musician meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources now included in the article show that Barrott meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. I also agree that the proper title for the article should be Future Loop Foundation, per WP:UCRN. — sparklism ^hey! 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO (those who say it passes should add which numbered section applies here), only trivial mentions, and reviews in music fanzines and promotional outlets. One mention in Allmusic does not make notability. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It passes bullet 1. Sites like Exclaim!, The Skinny, and MusicOMH are not fanzines nor promotional outlets; they're third-party, independent music review sites. Furthermore, he's afforded several paragraphs in the Pitchfork Media article, which is, at this point, the premiere American indie-rock publisher. This !vote seems to discount a lot of what's present in the current version. Chubbles (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariel Pamintuan

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable autobiography of a non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not that bad. 333 -blue 23:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article says that Pamintuan "is currently a talent of GMA Network and GMA Artist Center". The four sources currently cited in the article [2], [3], [4] and [5] are all pages belonging to GMA Network.com which makes them primary sources. WP:GNG states that sources for establishing notability should be "secondary" and "independent of the subject" which is clearly not the case at this time. Since it's possible such sources may exist, I am going to wait and see if better sources can be found before deciding my !Vote. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the sourcing is not great, but she appears to have had plenty of supporting roles. The Philippines' media focuses mostly on the big name "Idols" (stars), and other than interviews, their media does not carry a lot of what we'd see as "stories" about lesser-known actors. Bearian (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anything started from Beautiful Strangers our shows from GMA 7 since was an actress seen the research from person with this newspapers our new Kapuso stars, even Pamintuan was chance she is idol. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaghayegh Bakhtiari

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

No indication of notability, no third-party sources, none found via Google News in either English or Farsi. Huon (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Deleteadditional source added, the links that shows her thesis for master degree from University of Art , indication of her education, reviews and article about concerts that was done by National orchestra with her name mentioned as a Tar player, supporting the fact that she was member of National orchestra. Reviews and article about concert and performance that mentioning her as Tar player, supporting her continues collaboration with other bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paryaparya (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added another link in regards to her performance as a tar player with Mehrbanoo band in European tour. iranianmusic (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources added since the listing at AFD and I don't think they assist in any way towards reaching WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Her own thesis is not independent, and the articles which simply list her as a member of a band are not in-depth coverage about her to establish notability. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources show they exist, but no depth of coverage. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3rd party link was added conforming the information provided in this article, the 3rd party link specifically covers the musician in the article 5 July 2015 (UTC)iranianmusic (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paryaparya: You may only vote once, stop adding additional votes. You're allowed to continue discussing, but stop voting again. For one thing, it's a discussion and not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Additional sources have been added information about her as a musician and her biography by other websites that specifically talk about Iranian Musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.138.106 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably the article creator logged out. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry I didn't know the format, after the feedback from members I have been adding additional references to address the concerns and after positing those additional references left notes here so people could get to see that since the original article have been published I have many references and possibly change their stands or give me additional input. So you see, my intention hasn't been voting since I thought this was a discussion format. thanks again for your attention. iranianmusic (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a reasonable redirect has been suggested. Davewild (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Guyon

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for models. Merely a contestant on Asia's Next Top Model, did not win. No other possible claims to notability. PROD declined without explanation by the article creator. Safiel (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana is a thai model auditioned at Asia's Next Top Model cycle 3. She finished the 13th place at the competition.MarkHerson (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tom - I can't find any evidence of notability either so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). No independent notability, but a plausible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Narutolovehinata, sounds reasonable. Mabalu (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan Thakur

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

Not a notable personality. Seems to be a promotional page. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the content doesn't look promotional at all, also there are a couple more refs given on the talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's because i removed most of the promotional content which was present together with multiple dead links and a link to a chinese website. Her sole claim to fame now is that she is a chronic litigant in the courts. Soham321 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this person has definite and wide contributions to the society through her multiple works. It seems this man under the garb soham321 is having some personal agenda against this woman of true respect and presence in the State of Uttar Pradesh as one of the most well-known and respected activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronicleboy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Chronicleboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (for now at least). This is clearly not a nomination made in good faith and as such it does not deserve to be taken seriously. A look at the article history reveals that the nominator's contributions consist of first adding a section called "Chronic litigant" and then removing all other content. --Hegvald (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I protest about the accusation of bad faith. I went about removing what i thought was promotional content--anyone who takes a look at the article history starting from when i started working on it--can see that i was removing material that was sourced to dead links or links to unreliable and unauthoritative websites stating that she is in the process of writing some book (one book was about how her husband was unfairly suspended from his job) . One piece of material was sourced to a website in chinese language. Ultimately, when i started removing what i thought was unreliable material from her biography i found there was nothing left. I remembered this lady from following Indian news because she had been described as a chronic litigant by the higher courts in India and they have penalized her for filing a huge number of frivolous public interest cases by stating that henceforth she has to deposit money in the courts before filing a case and if the court is convinced that this is not a frivolous case then the security deposit will be returned to her. And so i added this section myself. But i did not think this person deserves a wikipedia page because she does not seem to be a notable person--certainly nowhere near as notable as the journalist Bhupendra Chaubey whose wikipedia page has now been created twice (once by me) but deleted both times. One can disagree about my assessment of Nutan Thakur, and i will bow to consensus, without the bad faith accusations. Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article history shows that you began by adding the paragraph that you originally headed "Chronic litigant", and then proceeded to remove everything else, leaving in place only your own section, which on its own clearly violates WP:BLP. --Hegvald (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, i was writing from memory. I added the new section and then proceeded to remove material which i found was sourced to dead links, to a website in chinese language, and to what i considered unreliable and unauthoritative sources. Maybe what i did was not right, but if that is so it can be easily rectified; this stilll does not give you the right to make accusations of bad faith. Soham321 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it does seem like a possibly borderline case but I did some googling and found quite a few posts on reliable Indian news sites (on at least three different topics/issues related to this person, so it's not a "known for one event" case). Apparently she was a member of the Aam Aadmi Party and it was a big deal when she resigned. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (I have edited the article recently and added a couple new references but that's not the full extent of the sources I found, there are plenty more.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly move. The case is notable as it satisfies GNG, and as a decision of a High Court and then the Supreme Court, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Allahabad High Court are binding, and decisions of the Supreme Court, where this case ended, are even more strongly binding, as provided by article 141 of the Constitution: [6]. We might wish to re-purpose this to an article on the case. James500 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minimal participation in the AfD, but the only keep argument doesn't actually present any sources to establish notability, so calling this a soft delete. If anybody wants to work on this to improve it, ping me and I'll be happy to recover the current text and move it to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winged word

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

I question whether the concept of a "winged word" has any real notability. Its supposed current meaning, of a well-known phrase that has literary origins, seems to come from the fact that Georg Büchmann gave the name Geflügelte Worte ("Winged Words") to his 1864 book of quotations. Then, according to the article, Thomas Carlyle used the phrase similarly in an essay. Has anyone else ever referred to "winged words" in this way? Not to my knowledge, and the article doesn't say. The article consists mostly of a list of phrases; no evidence is presented that any of them have specifically been described as a "winged word".

One other option besides deletion would be to rename this article to something like "List of phrases with literary origins", although I don't know the benefit of such an article.

There's also the matter that, as the article currently stands, I think many or most of the entries in the list fail the basic definition, by either not having literary origins ("Can't see the forest for the trees"), not being a commonly-used phrase ("Ignorabimus"), or both ("You forgot Poland"). Which is ironic, given the large number of real phrases that have come from literature. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a neologism, but not an attested term. This is an idiosyncratic usage. Carlyle's usage doesn't appear to be along these lines, and the concept supposedly described is allusion or just quotation. I try to keep the milk of human kindness and remember that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but some are lost in the maze of schools/ And come out coxcombs Nature meant for fools. The article is about a particular German language adaptation of a Homeric image (which was also found in Irish literature). Hithladaeus (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to understand the rationale. Is it "I've not heard of this, so sourcing from Thomas Carlyle is wrong"? We (as usual) have topic, title and article content. The nominator seems to have no quibble with the topic or even the content and the expression of the title is the more minor of the three. So why delete all of them, just on that basis? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a quibble with the topic: it doesn't seem to be notable. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the topic of phrases which originated in literature or public speech and have become widely used popular expressions ("have created wings") is certainly an encyclopedic subject and is very much talked about in philological circles. There must be hundreds of references to something like that. But, it is uncertain whether this subject is correctly termed "Winged word" or "Winged words" (as the German "Geflügelte Worte" is plural). Also, the current list presented in the article is an indiscrimunate mixture of such "winged words", idiomatic expressions of uncertain or known different origin, and dictionary entries without any "wings". There are different ways to handle the situation: Either userfy/move to draft and rework the article, agree on the proper name and then move back to main space; or delete per WP:TNT and wait for somebody to write an article on the subject in proper form; or relist this AfD discussion and start working on solve the problems of the article within a week. Pick one. Kraxler (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to keep or redirect, that is. Sandstein 11:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rican National Socialist Party

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

Previously tagged with PROD. PROD was removed. The article is completely unsourced and has been tagged as such for close to six months w/o improvement. This was less a political party than a local overseas chapter of the Nazi Party with less than 100 members. There is no claim of any notable activity on their part. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. The article currently fails both WP:GNG and WP:V. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Neo-Nazism#Costa Rica where it is mentioned as my searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive) found nothing to suggest solid notability aside from one Books link. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant Redirect? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote above comes across like a merge rationale to me, which is what moving content typically entails. Pinging @SwisterTwister: for clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed on principal to a merge. However the material needs to be sourced which at present it is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about a redirect actually since this is currently mentioned at that article. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I am fine with a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple check of the Spanish article shows it is of sufficient length, is sourced and the real name of the party was Partido Nazi de Costa Rica (Nazi Party of Costa Rica).[7] —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see only a passing reference to the subject in the linked article. ~~Even assuming the linked site is RS~~ it certainly does not meet the standards requiring in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources in GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is to reference that is the actual name, which is what should be used to do a search for sources. Additionally, the article mentions that all the members were arrested and put in concentration camps, which is notable even though they were not a political party that ran in elections. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the inclusion of articles on all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that readers have reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any political party would be inherently notable, especially (but not necessarily) if they at least once got on the ballot. The problem here is that this "party" was never formally organized, it was a group of (at their peak) 66 Nazi sympathizer who assembled at the German Club in San José, and comprised mostly German and Italian expatriots or immigrants (with questionable right to vote). They were indeed perceived as a nuisance (according to the only source presented) but IMO can not be perceived as a political party. Kraxler (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. For every pokemon, third-rate footballer, or dubious TV show article, we should have ten articles on obscure political parties. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on a number of similar AfDs that I have participated in over the years. I believe the community has tended to extend presumptive notability to political parties, including small or fringe parties, provided they actually got on the ballot. Articles about micro parties that never gained ballot access have generally been deleted unless they satisfied one or more of the criteria in GNG. This party does not appear to meet GNG and there is no evidence they ever got on the ballot. While I respect the right to invoke IAR in exceptional cases, and have done so my self a couple of times, I believe that such should be done with extreme care. My approach to IAR is, with apologies to one of our former presidents, that it should be safe, legal and rare. The two IAR !votes above seem to be less about an unusual topic that is in need of a one off exception than an attempt to nullify GNG and grant blanket notability to an entire subject genre. I believe very strongly that if this were proposed as a change to the notability guidelines it would fail, probably badly. And again, based on previous experience on AfD, I do not believe that the community has shown any inclination to grant across the board notability to every micro-political party that ever existed. Thus, with regret, I must disagree with the two IAR Keep !votes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move relevant information to Neo-Nazism#Costa Rica where the party is mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed on principle to a merge. The problem is that 90+% of the article is completely unsourced. So at this point I am not sure what can actually be moved. Barring a dramatic improvement in sourcing, I think a redirect, as discussed above, makes more sense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Abts

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

Delete: as non-notable artist. Quis separabit? 21:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's mentioned in several reference books, as listedin the Dutch article[8], and another here[9]. However, he seems to be mainly known as teacher to Adriaen de Bie rather than as a painter. I can't find evidence of his works being in major Dutch museums, but maybe others can search elsewhere. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not a very important artist, and as is typical for Renaissance artists not a lot is known about his life, but he is included in reference books and databases on Netherlandish painting. The RDK Netherlands Institute for Art History website has a brief bibliography.[10] Therefore in the interests of creating a reference work that matches other encyclopedias, we should have what information is available on him. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Rodeo Mexican Restaurant

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

Nothing particularly notable about this with my searches finding results here (News) here (News Archive], here (Books, very few results) and here (Highbeam), some of the same results) In 2013, it seems it started moving into Maine but there's nothing outstandingly notable about this and even an article I saved from AfD Hoss's Steak and Sea House (also Pennsylvania-based) had more attention than this. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This chain, based on the article has only 8 locations, and is local to a portion of Pennsylvania. I could find no coverage about this chain. Confounding the search is that there are other restaurants which apparently are not part of this chain which also go by the name "El Rodeo". -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkarsh Kulshrestha

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

Contested PROD. Autobiography of a young actor who has had minor parts in a couple of TV series - he clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and so it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. I have not been able to find sources that would meet WP:GNG, and the only source in the article just barely passes as a source and does not show any notability. bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was BLPPRODed and a source (albeit not the best source) was provided but the PROD was removed and could/should have been deleted by this as my first searches instantly found nothing good and there's not even an IMDb. It'd be nice if Wiki included every single actor but this looks a like personal webpage and there's not much foreseeable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but leaning toward Weak Delete. This is an autobiography, which is a violation of policy per Conflict of Interest. However, the auto-bio tag is less than a month old, and so we should give editors some time to improve it. However, if changes are made by the end of the month (or sooner), I would keep the article. Unfortunetly, given the current state of the article, I doubt the issues will be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensively fails to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). A one-year-old career consisting of alleged bit parts in two television shows, for which there is no available verification. I could find nothing about this person except self-authored social media sites. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalazist

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

Non-English neologism, eight Google results for the Anglicised version, three for the Persian. No working sources provided. Article creator has been adding "www.kalazist.ir is a practical example of this new word" so this is most likely just oblique spam. McGeddon (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there's nothing to suggest possible improvement and my searches instantly found nothing with this particularly finding nothing good and only foreign websites (that I'm even wary of clicking). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this were a real word, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another poor quality dictionary definition/neologism. WP:NOTDICT. --Michig (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Sato

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

Delete: as non-notable model, aka gravure icon. Quis separabit? 13:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just want her to have an English Wikipedia page along with other Super Sentai heroines, I will improve this article sometime Cris Balboa 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep:~~ She played Eri / Gosei Pink in Tensou Sentai Goseiger, she is known for that. Cris Balboa 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*(P.S. comments above and this one are made by the same user)--JAaron95 (Talk) 14:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Other than the one role given above, I couldn't find much coverage (reliable or not) for her either in English or Japanese (one role, unless it's a very prominent one, might not be enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER anyway). In fact, this forum thread suggests that she's left the entertainment industry altogether. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple, significant roles, and there is no indication that she meets either of the other two criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.TallCorgi (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - They keep her in Japanese, so I keep her in English. Cris Balboa 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out duplicate votes. Only one "vote" per person. Please understand that for articles to be on wikipedia they should be notable. WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. You wanting an article is not enough, nor is being told she played a role with no source telling us why it was a notable role. Her article being present on other wikis does not matter, we discuss articles on different wikis separately. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Tree Hotels

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

No evidence of any notability. One ref is an own web-sites and the three others appear to be web-sites reproducing press releases. No evidence that any notable and reliable source has written about the company. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 20:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. Also, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles, as per WP:NRVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 2 Jenuly 2015 (UTC)

References

^ "Forbes India Magazine - Lemon Tree Hotels' Audacious Plan". Forbes.
^ "Lemon Tree to come up with mega hotel project in Mumbai". The Financial Express.
^ Ruchika Chitravanshi (5 April 2014). "Lemon Tree Hotels eyeing luxury sector". Business Standard.
^ Our Bureau. "Lemon Tree Hotels eyes 4,000 rooms by 2016". The Hindu Business Line.
^ "Assotech Realty & Lemon Tree Hotels to build and manage serviced residences". The Times of India.

Keep - enough reliable, indy refs to show company notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon(Film)

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

Incorrect WP:MoS on film titles, and WP: NFF violation as principal photography on the film begins only in October Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:MoS issue is an easy fix with a page move, and WP:CRYSTAL doesn't fully apply, as a film in production is easily verifiable. The article is not speculation. On the other hand, I've found many sources on this topic that I'll add to the article shortly. This appears to be a major film in India. BU Rob13 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, only when principal photography begins, we can have an article on a film. Plus, the MoS of the article's name is incorrect, so even a redirect won't serve much purpose. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the MoS is easily fixable by a page move after the deletion discussion is completed. Could you link to the policy regarding principal photography? I'm unable to locate it. ~ Rob^Talk 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF explicitly states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF states it shouldn't exist as a film, but WP:FFEVENT suggests it can be treated as an event when it has significant coverage even before principal photography, as this article does. It passes notability guidelines for an event as documented on the FFEVENT page. ~ Rob^Talk 03:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a film and not any random "event", so despite all of its pre-filming publicity it shouldn't have an article until the filming actually begins. That's explicitly what the guideline states. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual planning of the movie can be an event if it meets notability criteria as such. This is very common practice. It is not only written about in the essay I referenced earlier, but you can also see practical examples in most major films, such as The Dark Knight where the article was created on March 2006, but photography began April 2007. ~ Rob^Talk 03:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate – The principal photography is yet to commence, but I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON either. The project seems like confirmed. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep as many sources has reported that project has been finalised and locked. Principal photography is only for adding films title to artist filmography. Daan0001 (talk)

Your second point is a clear misinterpretation of the policy. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Vishal Bhardwaj, Rangoon Sajid Nadiadwala, Rangoon Kangana Ranaut, Rangoon Shahid Kapoor, Rangoon

Soft delete of this stubby stub per simply being TOO SOON for a separate article under WP:NFF (paragraph 3). I've done my WP:BEFORE. So Daan0001 and BU Rob13... yes, the topic of this planned film is being discussed in multiple reliable sources and yes, policy allows that it may be spoken of, but guideline acknowledges that until filming begins a project can suffer from setbacks even if having a lot of pre-production/planning/casting/crewing coverage. So yes, since the efforts are sourcable, policy allows that we can write of it in the articles of its writer, director, producer, and stars. And in consideration of its coverage, we can allow a recreation/undeletion the moment we have confirmation of filming. And Krimuk90, a malformed title is always correctable and simply never a valid deletion rationale. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And among the extensive coverage, just yesterday Bollywood Life and ApunKaChoice told us that filming is imminent. This one will be coming back very, very soon.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Is this the same as Rangoon (film), which I looked up to see if that linked to anything and its another upcoming film with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Different film. Different cast and crew. Different language. Only thing same is the name. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - principal photography has not begun, per WP:NFF. Guidelines are intended to avoid the waste of time and effort. They should not trigger fundamental discussions whether somebody agrees with them, at least not at this venue. Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone else has created Rangoon Movie on the same topic. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rangoon Movie, as the information in that article is entirely duplicated in Rangoon(Film) and the latter is more comprehensive. ~ Rob^Talk 04:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rangoon(Film) and Rangoon Movie. And retitle although the title can not be Rangoon (film) because that is a completely different film. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rangoon(Film) and Rangoon Movie have been merged into Rangoon (2016 film). Fortdj33 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Tree School

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

Non-notable primary school - no indication is given or has been found that it meets notability guidelines. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found results particularly here and here but nothing that would suggest outstanding notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assuming no Redirect target can be found) per the longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically it would be no consensus, but the keep !votes were more policy compliant. The list technically isn't indiscriminate because it has both a context (affiliation with Brooklyn) and sourcing. The fact that in its current form it duplicates the function of a category is not a reason for deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Artists

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

This function is met by the Category:Artists from Brooklyn. No references, orphan, not maintained. Don't see other "list of artists from" cities or states, just countries. Vrac (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Honestly below the state (if not national) level, we should only be maintaining Fooers from Footown in list form. It's kind of ridiculous for a category to intersect a career with part of a city, given that these "from" categories don't even link the location to where they actually practiced their career. But lists can be maintained at a much more detailed level without interfering with anything else. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case why are there no "List of artists from" Queens, New York City, Massachusetts, Berlin, etc....? Maybe they are there under some other name but I'm not finding any. I only see countries. The understanding I have of "from" in a category is that they were born or grew up there. Vrac (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}}, {{improve categories}} and {{Cleanup}}, but having seen outcomes of multiple AfDs similar to this one the chances of these issues being corrected in the near future are low, at least according to my standerds.

Psst…The article is not an orphan, as other articles do link to it. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have cleaned-up, formatted and added sources to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to salvage it there is still a long, long way to go. The category has 41 entries. As far as renaming goes, is that people working in, or is it living in, and not from? This individual on the list, for example, was born in California, lived in Brooklyn, then moved back to California. So is it a list of people that were in Brooklyn at some point in time? The article went 7 years with hardly any modification. From MOS: "certain lists may get out of date quickly; for these types of subjects, a category may be a more appropriate method of organization". I'd say given how stale this thing is, it fits the bill. Vrac (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would a list of artists from Brooklyn get "out of date"? It's not a phone book, so if they move, die, or stop making art they wouldn't be removed from it. The list should correspond to the category and be renamed List of artists from Brooklyn. Such occupation/place classifications are almost always broad (as has been the practice since categories were adopted over a decade ago), encompassing people who are from a place and then go do their job somewhere else as well as those who do their job in that place. But so long as there is a core of indisputably verifiable content inclusion is not at all a deletion concern, but rather one for normal editing and discussion to resolve. On your other arguments, see WP:NOEFFORT, and "unreferenced" is irrelevant as references can clearly be added or it may be judged sufficient for such a mundane list to have the references in the linked articles. Either way, the information is verifiable, and that's what counts here. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of artists from Brooklyn gets "out of date" because it's not a list of people from Brooklyn, it's a list of a few artists who at one point in time worked/lived in Brooklyn. If they leave (which some have), it's out of date. I see User:Northamerica1000 refactored his comments to remove the "List of artists in Brooklyn" name he was suggesting, that was what I was responding to. "List of artists based in Brooklyn" suffers from the same problem. If it's renamed to "List of artists from Brooklyn" a number of names will have to be removed. A list that contains incorrect information and that no one updates doesn't add anything positive to an encyclopedia. Vrac (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A list of artists from Brooklyn...[is] not a list of people from Brooklyn"? I'm afraid you lost me there. You're right that we shouldn't title it "in Brooklyn", because that would wrongly suggest just at present and we don't do that with lists or categories for the very reason that it would be unmaintainable and easily get out of date. A list of people "from" somewhere can't get out of date beyond its need to add new entries; the old entries, once verified, would never be removed, so I'm not sure what "number of names" you think would "have to be removed" or why. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these people: Andrea Zittel, Jeffrey Wright (actor), Colson Whitehead, Sufjan Stevens, Stephen Shames, Stephen Shames, Mark Morris (choreographer), Jhumpa Lahiri, Jonathan Safran Foer, Jennifer Egan, Kyle Bobby Dunn are actually "from" Brooklyn, they were born and grew up somewhere else. That's 11 people out of a total of 18 in the list, or 61%. That's why I said it's not a list of people from Brooklyn. To encompass all the people on the list you would have to name the article something like: "List of people I (the creator of the list, and anyone who has added a name) associate with Brooklyn". It's a form of original research. Who's to say Andrea Zittel isn't a "California Artist" and not a "Brooklyn Artist"? I could make a good case: she was born in CA and lives there now. If you change the name of the article to "from", all the people I listed have to be removed. Vrac (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think "from" can only mean the place where someone was born/grew up? Linguistically, the word is not limited to "original point of origin", and the WP community has consistently used "from" both in lists and in categories to encompass residency at birth, at retirement, or any time in between, for many, many years now. I myself have previously advocated "associated with" as a better phrasing (and indeed started at least a couple lists under that title), but custom and numbers have been overwhelmingly against it, as can be seen in the contents of Category:Lists of people by city in the United States or Category:People by state in the United States. So, again, nothing would "have to be removed". Indeed the practice for someone like Zittel would be to list her in both "artists from California" and "artists from Brooklyn", and note the long-stable inclusion criteria given at Category:Artists from California. Note that we've moved away from phrasing it as "Brooklyn artists" or "California artists" to avoid drawing just the distinction you're trying to insist upon (see this CFD, for example). postdlf (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think someone who wasn't born in, didn't grow up in, and doesn't currently live or work in Brooklyn qualifies to be on this list then there isn't much point in continuing this conversation. Vrac (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Artists from Brooklyn. "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I recommend renaming the article to List of artists based in Brooklyn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Another option is naming the article List of artists from Brooklyn as per above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And discussion isn't a collection of WP:VAGUEWAVEs. Can you explain why you think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here? postdlf (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an indiscriminate list because there isn't really anything notable by itself about artists being from Brooklyn Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SNUGGUMS: Actually, artists from Brooklyn is a notable topic. The list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN. The article qualifies per the latter because the overall topic of Brooklyn artists has been discussed as as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See source examples below. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "12 Street Artists From Brooklyn Celebrate The DIY Culture Of Berlin". The Huffington Post.
^ "Six Brooklyn artists to exhibit at fifth Contemporary Art Fair NYC". brooklyneagle.com.
^ "Brooklyn Performance Artists To Make Giant Hamster Wheel Their Home". cbslocal.com.
^ "Re-Emerging Older Professional Artists from Brooklyn Display Work at Carter Burden Gallery". Bed-Stuy, New York Patch.
^ "Artists from Brooklyn and Dallas descend on 500X Gallery near Fair Park". Center Stage.

It's a bizarre interpretation to consider "indiscriminate" the equivalent of "non-notable". And regardless of whether such a grouping satisfies WP:LISTN (as North America argues well above), it satisfies WP:LISTPURP as an index of WP articles on people subdivided by place and occupation. Such lists are standard, and so long as the classification is not unusual, there need not be anything notable about the organizing fact (whatever that even means; notability pertains to topics, not facts), whether it's being an artist from Brooklyn, dying in 2015, or being an alumni of Brigham Young University. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of people mere connected by a common? geographical workplace?/residence?/birthplace? Also "Brooklyn Artists" (with capital A) suggests a particular group or organization. But the list is an array of "Brooklyn artists" (with lower case a). Kraxler (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list can and should be renamed to list of artists from Brooklyn, so that problem is easily fixable. I don't understand your first comment, unless you're just generally against lists of people by place (whether or not further subcategorized by occupation), which is too common in both our list and category systems (and a practice that is routinely endorsed in deletion discussions) for us to tolerate arbitrarily knocking out one instance on a completely abstract complaint. Do you have an argument specific to this list and its corresponding category? postdlf (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre to badger !voters when 5 of them agree that it's an indiscriminate array of unconnected items. Lists are very useful if they have a purpose. Just to list something for the sake of listing it (like here), is not helpful. There is already Category:Artists from Brooklyn, with much more entries, which serves the same purpose. To throw into one bag everybody who once in his life painted, sang, scupted, wrote, õr made any other kind of art, and was born, resided, worked, passed by or just once set foot in Brooklyn, is ludicrous. Kraxler (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The five !voters are all making arguments that are contrary to guidelines and practice in this area, and that seem to just show a lack of very basic familiarity with lists and categories of this kind. The connection is career and place. It's well established that's sufficient. And it's not reasonable to consider it ludicrous in list form but not in category form because it's the same information either way, just in different presentation formats. That's the whole point of WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's much more reasonable to create a list of People from Earth, the connection is career and place, it's well established and I'm sure I could produce some refs who talk about people from Earth. I suggest you change from admin-weight-pushing mode to common-sense mode. The already mentioned 5 !voters disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines. Period. Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"People from Earth" is called Lists of people, or Category:People. And your argument (an irrelevant hypothetical that is not specific to place or occupation) is called a straw man. The problem with the 5 !voters is not that they disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines and policies, but that their comments merely contradict the guidelines and policies without explaining why they should not apply here, or without even acknowledging the guidelines exist. Everyone who says this classification is fine as a category cannot per WP:CLN simultaneously claim that it somehow isn't as a list, and WP:NOTDUP within that same guideline says you can't delete a list because you think that the "function is met" just by the category. And everyone whose criticism focuses on the current state of the list is not presenting a valid argument for deletion per policy at WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. That's not my personal interpretation, that's plain language. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your personal interpretation. For comparison: There is Category:Members of the New York State Assembly but there is not List of Members of the New York State Assembly. Why? Because the list would contain thousands of names from different centuries without any encyclopedic info, or a duplication and repetition of the same info which is elsewhere (in the articles with lists on any one legislature, and the persons' bios) presented in context, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.". That's plain language. Also check out Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information#What exactly is an "indiscriminate collection of information" ? and tell me why Andrea Zittel is a "Brooklyn artist". Kraxler (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep throwing out examples of hypothetical lists that would be overly general and have a lot of members, and so like subcategorization would be better converted into lists of lists with the content handled by sublists. Which is a bizarrely off-the-mark point to keep trying to make (and also smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST), because this list is a rather specific sublist, far narrower than List of people from Brooklyn, which does exist. So I don't understand at all what argument you're trying for there (and this list could also be converted into a list of lists such as List of sculptors from Brooklyn or List of 20th-century artists from Brooklyn, if you had an argument that this list was too large...which you don't). Nor is a list of articles "data"; INDISCRIMINATE even links to data so there should be no confusion as to what is meant (see instead the intro sentences to WP:NOTDIR, and do try to read WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP and demonstrate you understand the guidelines that actually apply here), and in any event even if it were necessary (which it is not), every list of articles is capable of being annotated to summarize their relationship to the list and why they are notable. So again we have a complaint that ignores the list's potential for expansion and development, and so provides no support for deletion. And though (as you should know) that AFD is not for resolving disputes about particular article content, Zittel's article clearly states that she began her significant work in Brooklyn, so there is no question that a) she's an artist and b) she once lived in Brooklyn and even practiced as an artist there. So her inclusion in this list is completely verifiable and consistent with how we treat lists of occupation and place across the board. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is a real example of being overly general and it would have a lot of members, ten thousands, if anybody cared to complete it: All entries in Category:People from Brooklyn who once in their lifetime touched a piece of art, all artists on Earth who ever set foot in Brooklyn (thank God the NYC airports are located in Queens, lest any artist who changed planes or just stopped at JFK or LGA would be included here), all artists on Earth who were born in Brooklyn, any artist on Earth who ever talked about Brooklyn, and anybody else who would qualify on the flimsiest grounds; because the list entries are presented out of context, contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Guidelines are guidelines, and they should serve a purpose. Kraxler (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like an attempt to listify Category:Artists from Brooklyn but it is incomplete. I think it is more appropriate as a category than a list in the state that it is currently in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's contra WP:CLN, and more important, contra WP:PRESERVE. Deleting it certainly won't help it become complete, and we do not delete content based on its current state rather than its potential. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of artists from Brooklyn.
Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has shown with several sources that "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic.
I also agree with postdlf (talk · contribs) that several of the "delete" votes advance arguments that conflict with the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative, which says:
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.
Another argument for deletion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which has four bullet points: (1) Summary-only descriptions of works, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. None of these bullet points can be applied to "List of artists from Brooklyn".
Cunard (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, going direction WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School of Engineering and Technology (SET)

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

Non- notable institution. Declined speedy, on the grounds that educational instutions cannot be speedied. I do not believe this applies to individual faculties, which have to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to create an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per comment by RHaworth. Complete notability failure and article creation failure as well. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent notability for this sub-school of Sharda University, itself a barely notable university founded in 2009. Note the article's creator also created an article for Sharda's School of Business Studies (SBS) which I have nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous copyright infringement. Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention at Sharda University if necessary - My searches found nothing fruitful aside from links here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual schools of universities are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Strafford

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

Auto-biography (lots of heavily favourable edits coming from strafford.plus.com), unverifiable "facts" (and changing verified and well sourced facts, including entire paragraphs), and simply not a notable person Bullblade (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Unacceptable autobiography. Conflict of Interest. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As (ex)boss of a well-known football club and a well-known and successful business (PlusNet), who's also active in the local business/political community, his words and actions are widely reported[11][12][13][14][15][16] Issues with vandalism, etc, can be dealt with. That leaves the question of notability, and I think there's enough coverage. The article may present Strafford in a favourable light, but the facts are there and it can be fixed by editing. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search reveals plenty of non-trivial coverage, thus satisfying WP:GNG. One might expect as such with the subject being the founder of a significant ISP and the one-time chairman of a professional English football club. Article does need cleaning up though. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes GNG, Dunno whether the subject's edited the article or not but either way it's not grounds for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a source review, the subject passes WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanding with the sources from national media noted above, but clearly an individual who has received more than local attention potential COI issue in the article are a content problem not a notability issue. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete.~~ many of the "keeps" above highlight the problem with this article. It is being used as a CV/advert and history is being rewritten. There is a common misconception that he was the main man at Plusnet (and reading his own edits, I can see why you might indeed believe such a thing!). Plusnet was a continuation of Force 9 Internet. It was a rebrand to entice business customers (at the time, obviously now very much residential). Paul Cusack is the only name that deserves to be credited with founding Plusnet. Lee was an employee and minority shareholder (4.8%). One of many issues with this article. Bullblade (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free From Conceptual Thoughts (LOUD Studio Album)

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

Unsourced article that fails to make any claim of notability, and a search does not reveal much. Reads like a copyvio, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G12 due to the unambiguous copyright violation in the article's history. The only non-infringing content is the track list, and the earliest history contains the copyvio. I've been combing through the user's contributions speedying many other copyvios. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article, copyvio in all versions, sources could not readily have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, I savagely edited the article on the band which was full of what smelt like copyvio and was certainlt apallingly writte fanguff.TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur UFO incident

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

WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not a newspaper; this event did get some coverage but not enough to have its own article here. It's already listed at UFO sightings in India. The IBTimes reference looks good; dailystar.co.uk looks like a tabloid, and the other two I can't confirm, as I can't identify whether jagran.com is a reliable source, and the eenaduindia reference gives me a 404. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other news sources available but I don't think it's remarkable enough. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for its own article as demonstrated by a lack of widespread and in depth reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom but also so long as it's included in the UFO sightings in India article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete-jagran.com is a website of newspaper belonging to India. How can't it be a reliable. Do you know that Dainik Jagran is the largest newspaper daily of the world? This article is of great importance and the matter is neglected by all. I request you not to delete this article. There are many links included in other wiki articles, this doesn't mean that article is to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.253.70 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — 49.201.253.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't think it's of "great importance" because these things happen all the time. This event would be remarkable if the sighted object was confirmed as alien spacecraft, or if there was more proof than some photos, or if it caused widespread response and serious investigation. But right now it looks like yet another "someone saw a weird thing in the sky" story, or, more likely, "someone created a UFO hoax" story. (See this express.co.uk article "... We found identical 'UFO images' to both in the boy's pictures in several other alleged "real UFO pictures" online ... We discovered these two were later exposed as hoaxes and the image comes from a mobile phone app called Camera360. ... 'Phone-apped' UFO and ghost pictures are causing a major headache for genuine paranormal researchers as several of the pictures make it online, creating a buzz of interest that they are the real thing, before they are later found to be a hoax.") — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of hoaxes, the Morristown UFO hoax was notable, for all the effort that went into it, the way people responded, and how the hoaxers got convicted. The Kanpur incident is just some photoshopped pictures and people wondering if they're real or not, and the answer is "probably not". Not remarkable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demon's Souls. Selective merge per postdif. This seems like an unlikely search term, ~~so leaving a redirect behind doesn't seem required (but I'll leave that up to whoever does the merge)~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that leaving the redirect is a requirement of Wikipedia:Merge and delete, so whoever does the merge, please do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Demon's Souls characters

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

WP:LISTCRUFT: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list, the content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable. Also WP:FANCRUFT. No reliable secondary sources covering these characters. No indication of notability or importance outside the scope of the video game article. The1337gamer (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - Fails our notability guidelines, content more akin to something that would belong on a Wikia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMERGE to Demon's Souls, which has no section for its characters at present. I'm always confused when people believe that the content of a notable work is somehow unverifiable, which would only be the case if all existing copies were destroyed. Or it rests on a misunderstanding of WP:OR that would forbid us from consulting primary sources ourselves (which we may consult, so long as we are only making "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."). Basic descriptions of video game characters can always be sourced to the game itself and its manual(s) (both from the game designer and from third-parties), and also often to reviews that describe the notable game. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect as suggested. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Gotay

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

Not commenting on notability of article. I wanted other opinions to see if subject is considered to be notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Even from not much effort, you can see he hasn't gotten considerably good third-party coverage and all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found none of this aside from two links from his time as a cop. I'm open to drafting/userfying if wished but I'm not seeing any good notability for any of his occupations. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have searched all three links and know that he is well known as a martial artist, professor, and nypd sgt. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify why you are saying keep when you nominated the article? If he is well known then, what about the good coverage that he needs to be considered notable? SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the cover of 2 magazines and multiple articles [17] and a legend within the NYPD. [18] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the source doesn't even use the word legend, let alone call him one. The source you had that said it was some guys blog. And no, the passing mention in that NY Times article isn't significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll go through this one later, but a number of those sources will end up removed. We can't use a persons own self-published books as the major basis for the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. After non-RS and empty fluff is removed, we have a retired cop, now teaching at a college that doesn't pass WP:NACADEMICS. Sounds like a great guy, but not a notable one.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Albert Gotay appeared on the cover of Official Karate in 1970 and 1971. [19] He also appeared in articles of Official Karate Magazine 9 times between 1973 and 1974. [20]

CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A picture isn't significant coverage. And "appearing" in articles really isn't either, especially when it's merely a passing mention, like some of the material you tried to include. We have to examine the significance. If your local newspaper mentions a high school football player getting a scholarship to play at a Division 3 school, he didn't magically become notable. And please stop using reference links. Just post the link, not in a ref format. Your footnotes interrupt the rest of the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS, or WP:MANOTE. Lacks significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then vote It is expected, even hoped, that articles are developed while under AfD and if the amount of references and details can go up they can also go down. I have no issue with the changes of the article since they are explained in the edit summary and we can always look at older versions but I must say in this case the before and after versions of the article are so different it is shocking. It feels gutted and I can not help but think it would be better to discuss the shortcomings here than at the editing level. Just a point.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PREHSE, Gutting is something that NS36 can do well. I am quite sure he can gut quality articles with what appears to be sound logic. I don't even bother arguing with him. It simply takes too long and is too time consuming. He is a big reason as to why I don't even bother making large articles. If it can be gutted that quick after a hours of research. It was frustrating for me before. I simply don't even bother. I leave the articles at the stub level and allow other wikipedians do build them up. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, comment on the article, not the editors. Since you want to talk about what people are or are not good at, let's talk about you're good at. You're good at ignoring the policy about reliable sources and spamming the articles with non-RS trash. You're also very good at ignoring the rules of grammar, especially with all your "he would..." entries. You're also pretty skilled at failing to actually read sources and either present information incorrectly or out of context. Perhaps if you spent a couple of hours actually reading the RS policy, instead of looking at self-published sources and blogs, you'd find that less of your edits fail to meet the standards required by Wikipedia. In short, if you publish poorly sourced material, it'll probably be viewed that way.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell me to comment on the article and not the editor and proceed to do just that. I am good at creating articles! That is what I do. This is of course volunteer work and so I won't spend more than a small amount of time on articles. If you gutting articles as per PRehse, continue on with it. I will go on my merry way. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Yes, I did. "Since you want to talk about..." was the key to that phrase. You want to talk about editors, so I'll play. No, you are NOT good at creating articles. Mass numbers don't make you good. Your articles are poorly written, poorly sourced and often deleted. We went through this before. Admins and experienced editors tried offering you guidance, but you've roundly ignored it. You say you only spend a small amount of time on an article, yet you spend a lot of time trying to get them kept. Maybe if you did it right the first time, you'd have to waste less of your precious time defending junk. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better to discuss it at the article talk page. That said, unreliable sources are unreliable sources, regardless of how long they get discussed. Sources being misrepresented are still misrepresented. We could spend a lot of time discussing it....but the author decided to bring it here. He started the 7 day time clock. Since uninvolved editors are going to drop in an look at it, I think we should be removing non-RS's and trivial filler that is obscuring the notability issue. Digging up a passing mention from a RS that says the subject presented awards at a college awards banquet obfuscates the issue if an editor just glances at the source and doesn't look at the context. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it here because it was Speedily Deleted a while back after NS36 left a comment on the talk page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually writing it correctly, with actual reliable sources, with more than trivial factoids filling it and maybe you'll find less of them going to AfD. I wasn't the only one sending your most recent round of articles to AfD, nor a I the only one here saying to delete. If you recall, I've improved your sourcing on other articles, trimmed out the trivia and they've been able to stay. Instead of acting ~~all butt hurt~~ like a victim over it, try doing fewer quality articles instead of a higher number of questionable ones. But I've suggested that before. I practically begged you to take one item and try to work it to a GA nomination so you'd learn what good sourcing etc is. But your response to me was : "I create so others can work". [21] You're ok with doing shoddy work, so stop acting like a victim when someone else cleans up what you don't care enough to do correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the NY Times was considered to be a reliable source. PRehse, believed that certain sources like AikiNews were reliable to which you disagreed. [22] So apparently I am not the only one who disagrees with you. Past that I don't take kind to begging. I find it a bit uncomfortable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times is a reliable source. Unfortunately, what you used it for was trivial. AikiNews isn't even involved in this article, so who the heck cares about it. He disagreed with me, I decided to leave it and not go to RSN with it. But that was ANOTHER ARTICLE. Focus on this one. And begging.....grow up. I said "practically". I tried to help you grow as an editor. All you had were excuses. Instead of getting better, you took a break, then returned with the same ~~crap factory~~ tendency to publish poorly sourced articles as when you left. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't thing notability requirements, either general or specific, have been met.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the sources necessary to show he meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Manhart

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college offensive linemen rarely generate enough press to achieve notability. I see no reason to make an exception here--fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Played college at a third-tier, Division II program for which he received no significant coverage that I have been able to locate. He was not drafted by anyone in the 2015 NFL Draft. He signed briefly with the Eagles but was released very soon thereafter, before the pre-season even began. The coverage that I have found in reliable, independent sources consists mostly of brief mentions (i.e., a single sentence noting his release) in articles like this one. All in all, doesn't meet the notability bar. Also, he doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH as he has not won a major award, set a major record, been inducted into a Hall of Fame, or gained national media attention. Willing to reconsider if other sources can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG with no substantial coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. ~ Rob^Talk 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A football player that does not meet notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per sk1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaya Beatty

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

Nomination withdrawn by nominator Flat Out (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?? Did you happen to miss this and this? Not exactly "mere mentions". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with more of the available and unused sourcing as this person (even if seen slightly poor in SIGCOV by some) now meets WP:ENT (prong 1) with her multiple significant roles. While back in 2011 with her single significant role she would not have passed ENT, it is nice that since that time she has acquired significant roles in multiple notable project. Now a suitable and improvable stub that benefits Wikipedia and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the previous deletion attempt, the actress has already met WP:GNG by having been billed as a starring actress in two previous television series, as well as with the addition of even more reliable coverage. Enough content has been provided to more than establish coverage for the actress. Silver Buizel (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT #1. The coverage is not yet as detailed as one might like, but she does pass the guideline and there is enough verifiable information for a starter article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (Mainly MQS) - Sources aren't perfect but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus to delete, especially considering one of the two keeps is from a user with an extremely limited contribution history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skruddgemire). Normally, I would close this as a redirect, but there are strong arguments made why a redirect would be inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Method

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

As far as I can tell, the Sinclair Method is only discussed in two of Sinclair's own research articles. The literature does not discuss this by this name. There is, however, tremendous discussion in the literature about the use of naltrexone for alcohol dependence. As such, I propose this article be deleted. The Sinclair Method is simply non-notable and could even be considered WP:OR. All mentions of this "method" should not be included on Wikipedia. - Originally posted by FoCuSandLeArN (talk) on User Talk:Mcmatter <transferred by Mcmatter>

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I intend to write a full article on this topic, which has ample coverage, unlike the "Sinclair Method". Previous discussion was pretty much void because nobody actually cared to offer a decline !vote. Merely one keep resulted in a speedy keep. This topic is simply non-notable; two sources from Sinclair himself. Nobody else has ever used this term beyond the author's futile attempts to promote this in minor outlets. It's as simple as that. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be merged into the article FoCuSandLeArN is trying to write. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 11:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge. Non-notable subject matter that was probably created by COI-editor and escaped previous AfD due to his self-promotion. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While The Sinclair Method is based off of Naltrexone and other medications that achieve the same method, it is gaining recognition as The Sinclair Method due to various media campaigns (most notably by Claudia Christian). I feel that it should be kept or at the very least set up as a redirect to the articles on the pharmacological disruption of the Stimulus/Reward Response which is how these drugs function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skruddgemire (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I plan on doing. A proper article dedicated to naltrexone use for alcohol dependence, discussing all current points of view and not some obscure clinical proposal with no scientific community backing. This method is by no means (and I can't stress this point enough) standard practise. The use of natrexone for alcohol dependence is thoroughly discussed in clinical and pharmacological research, but never has this method been discussed in such fields, except for the author's own work. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced; easily passes WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding me? 2 references are his own work; one is a blog, one is Erowid, one is a non-scientific book he provided a foreword to, one is from some random clinic in Finland and the other is a therapeutic guideline which does not mention this method even once. Please check the references methodically before making such an assertion. Sinclair is simply trying to rebrand current treatments into carrying his name, and obviously it hasn't stuck. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Comment Anyone can look at the sources and references and judge for themselves. The "find sources" links above provide plenty of more examples, e.g. [23], [24]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to naltrexone Yes naltrexone is used for alcoholism. Its use is however not called the Sinclair method by most of the medical community. This ref does not mention his name [25] Many of the other sources are by him. Maybe it should be merged to either his name or to naltrexone? This review of the topic lists all the paper and a number date back to 1992 and are not by Sinclair. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Naltrexone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously most of the content is backed by good sources, and it should be kept. The point of dispute is whether "use of Naltrexone to address alcoholism" should be called "the Sinclair Method". Most of the sources cited, like this NICE paper and this Cochrane paper, do not use the term "Sinclair Method". Sources which do use this term include the documentary One Little Pill and Psychology Today. If this article is kept, then Naltrexone medical information should not be split from its article to be put here. If this is kept, then probably this article should only talk about cultural and social documentation about this treatment, and leave medical information to the drug article. A problem is that right now, this article is a fork of the drug article and is not presenting any of the social issues. While this is notable topic, and it could have a Wikipedia article if it covered social issues, there is no content here that covers social issues and this content only copies information from the drug article. I say (1) merge if there is content here which is not in Naltrexone (2) delete for now (3) recreate if someone develops this article to cover social issues and avoids bringing the medical content here.

I am not doubting that this treatment should be covered in Wikipedia. I just do not see supporting evidence that this treatment is called "Sinclair Method" rather than "treatment with Naltrexone". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The efficacy claims on the page are not from, research they are rhetorical claims from the company called the Contral Clinic which is the commercial entity set up to sell The Sinclair Method product. This method of alcoholism treatment is very limited and there should at least be a "controversy" section to acknowledge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxdtox (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1977 World Series of Poker. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie McDaniels

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

She won $5,000 in a poker trounament.... This is the clearest evidence I've seen that the essay at WikiProjectPoker should be ignored. Winning any side-event at the WSOP does not make you notable. This article is absurd. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:49, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1977 World Series of Poker. Unlike Brodie, who had a long poker career, McDaniels (some sources say McDaniel) seems to have been a one-hit wonder. United Press International gave her a short article,[26] but that's about as good as it gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct is a good idea, I would say specifically to re-direct to: 1977_World_Series_of_Poker#Preliminary_events. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Clarityfiend. Rray (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seal-Bin Han

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

It doesn't seem like there was a proper discussion of the issues at the first AfD discussion. I'm not seeing a sensible claim for notability here. The two huffington post articles seem to written in a blog by Jim Luce who is effectively promoting the award he has given Seal-Bin Han, so I'm not sure we can really count that as independent coverage. ℕ ℱ 00:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete for now (and maybe draft/userfy if wished) simply because although the article is neat and sourced, further searches find no other sources aside from here. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks suspiciously like an AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sandow

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

Non-notable other then being "that guy" and Orange is the New black, could possibly redirect to the Orange is The New Black page until he gets more roles. Also, none of the references are reliable. TheMesquito^buzz 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete since WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)~~ Keep per Colapeninsula (below). The article needs work. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about meets WP:DIRECTOR with his new film The Wannabe.[27][28][29][30] Plus there's some coverage of his OITNB work, and (as further evidence of the buzz around the movie) some interviews.[31][32][33][34] Possibly a WP:GNG case in there too. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Colapeninsula says, coverage of him has increased in connection with his new film The Wannabe; adding that to his role in Orange is the New Black, he passes GNG and WP:CREATIVE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a heavy amount of work but sources seem to be there and he has a credited main role on a top tv show so i think he just squeezes past WP:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freeda Hanni

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Chinese)^[1]

^ http://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&tn=baidu&wd=%E9%9D%9E%E8%BE%BE%20%E9%A6%96%E9%83%BD%E5%BD%A2%E8%B1%A1%E5%B0%8F%E5%A7%90&rsv_pq=c6d6ea660002261e&rsv_t=b1f1%2FIkUQoqfj%2FZHtwI6Aa4OEMr2jgp4oVi%2FxGuWi3bcQ0krQDtYQR966oc&rsv_enter=1&inputT=25537&rsv_sug3=45&rsv_sug1=9&rsv_sug2=0&rsv_sug4=26385&bs=china%20media%20capital

Does not appear to pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This actress fails WP:GNG by a mile. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 11:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first searches instantly found nothing and it seems there isn't even an IMDb page for her. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has provided many RS (in Chinese). STSC (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu isn't a reliable source and neither are social media sites/BBS'. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeda_Hanni#References STSC (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — User:STSC, the so-called reference(s) are clearly written by the same people/person who wrote this page, i.e. the girl's management team / family / herself. She's obviously talented, pretty, and young, so there's a possibility that she may be big one day, but for the time being, she doesn't fail WP:GNG by a mile — she fails it by a lightyear. Timmyshin (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Forbes India Magazine - Lemon Tree Hotels' Audacious Plan". Forbes.

[2] "Lemon Tree to come up with mega hotel project in Mumbai". The Financial Express.

[3] Ruchika Chitravanshi (5 April 2014). "Lemon Tree Hotels eyeing luxury sector". Business Standard.

[4] Our Bureau. "Lemon Tree Hotels eyes 4,000 rooms by 2016". The Hindu Business Line.

[5] "Assotech Realty & Lemon Tree Hotels to build and manage serviced residences". The Times of India.

[6] "12 Street Artists From Brooklyn Celebrate The DIY Culture Of Berlin". The Huffington Post.

[7] "Six Brooklyn artists to exhibit at fifth Contemporary Art Fair NYC". brooklyneagle.com.

[8] "Brooklyn Performance Artists To Make Giant Hamster Wheel Their Home". cbslocal.com.

[9] "Re-Emerging Older Professional Artists from Brooklyn Display Work at Carter Burden Gallery". Bed-Stuy, New York Patch.

[10] "Artists from Brooklyn and Dallas descend on 500X Gallery near Fair Park". Center Stage.

[11] ttp://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&tn=baidu&wd=%E9%9D%9E%E8%BE%BE%20%E9%A6%96%E9%83%BD%E5%BD%A2%E8%B1%A1%E5%B0%8F%E5%A7%90&rsv_pq=c6d6ea660002261e&rsv_t=b1f1%2FIkUQoqfj%2FZHtwI6Aa4OEMr2jgp4oVi%2FxGuWi3bcQ0krQDtYQR966oc&rsv_enter=1&inputT=25537&rsv_sug3=45&rsv_sug1=9&rsv_sug2=0&rsv_sug4=26385&bs=china%20media%20capital

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]