Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 October	2 November >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burn City[edit]

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

~~fails WP:NSONG "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article;~~Fails WP:NALBUM articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Flat Out (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this is actually an album, so NSONG shouldn't apply, but agreed that there's a lack of coverage of the recording, and I can't find any more sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar's additional sources and expanding of article. Good work. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appeared on a national chart, passes WP:NALBUMS#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability isn't enough if the article is a stub and likely to to remain a stub.

Comment – now it becomes a matter of your opinion vs others. I believe it is now a start class article. I've expanded it further with a Reception section, adding reviews & refs. Aside: could you add your sig?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a national chart placing meets notability requirements - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP: NALBUMS.Dan arndt (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silence the Sirens[edit]

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

~~fails WP:NSONG "Notability aside,~~ Fails WP:NALBUM a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Flat Out (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's an album. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appeared on a national chart, passes WP:NALBUMS#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability isn't enough if the article is a stub and likely to to remain a stub. Flat Out (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – now it becomes a matter of your opinion vs others. You're predicting that this article is "unlikely ever to grow beyond stub". With a review and the charting provided, I'd argue that it is likely to grow to at least Start.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Actually it was already assessed as start class (back in 2008). Now its better than it was.08:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - chart placing - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:NALBUMS. Dan arndt (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources aren't amazing but I'd say there's enough for it to pass GNG (just!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger Pains[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Flat Out (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the group. Nothing here really but a tracklisting. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has access to 3 reviews, passes WP:NALBUMS.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) It could be expanded to start class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal coverage from Triple J - doesn't really review the album, more just stating that it exists. Is urbansmarts.com a reliable source? --Michig (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added two more reviews from mainstream newspapers. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability in its own right. Dan arndt (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MC Pegz. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn Cat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. "Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Flat Out (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist per the nominator's, err, merge rationale. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviewed, impact of album on Australian hip hop scene, refs added. Passes WP:NALBUMS and article is likely to be Start class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of this album from utne.com could hardly be less substantial, the AMO one seems to be written by his record company, and I have my doubts over 'Tomato Records Monthly' being considered a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist. Not seeing significant coverage so it fails notability guidelines. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas M Elbousty[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current version is simply not acceptable and is a WP:TNT at best. Pinging DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable. A "senior lecturer" which in a language program means a very experienced teacher with native language skills and an academic background, but not necessarily or usually a researcher. co-Editor of one book of essays, co-compiler of one book of readings. That;'s not enough for WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the claim that he received "National Order of the Legion of Honor". It's not mentioned on his Yale website biography, nor is the "Voice of Justice" designation, etc. I can't find anything that suggests notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I missed the significance of being an ASME Fellow. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siamack A. Shirazi[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. He has written a lot of material but is not highly cited. There are no sources that that about other than a couple brief bio-blurbs on books or intros to conference proceedings. All sources in the article are from the university where he works. Jbh ^Talk 22:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn @David Eppstein: Oppss... I missed that. Thank you.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C3 (ASME Fellow). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will restore for anybody who wishes to work on the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osto system model[edit]

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

Non-notable system. Seems to have been copied from somewhere else but I can not find where. The Banner talk 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move sources from German Wikipedia- ~~no sources I can recognize from this version~~ Found the sources in the German Wikipedia. Poor translation from German. This article also exists on the German Wikipedia. See OSTO_Systemmodell. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the article to its German Counterpart. The originating article contains images and sources. Seems to be some sort of German Management System for large companies. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space until all outstanding issues are resolved. bd2412 T 13:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am not familiar with this theory, but I suspect it actually is notable, albeit most of the sources for it are in German rather than English. I think, if something is notable in German, it must be notable in English too, even if it is hard to find English language sources. Whatever the faults of the current article, I don't think deletion is the answer. (But I don't have a strong opinion on this.) SJK (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7, per my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWF King of the Ring (2012)[edit]

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

The promotion itself doesn't even have an article, and the event does not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually there is a main article but there was a typo in the name - now corrected. Part of a series of articles with no indication of notability, no references and looking at the content I suspect a hoax. All were tagged for speedy deletion (removed by author) but since the AfD is here I will add the others too.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to delete these as A7. A search for TWF King of the Ring brought up this video, which gives off the strong impression that this is a case of a group of friends getting together to horse around and do some backyard wrestling in their spare time. So maybe not a hoax, but decidedly non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy W. Stutz[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this Vietnam War POW doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no doubt a brave man, but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and as a colonel without a fighting command with his awards, doesn't get close to WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think his decorations taken together are enough to scrape him by the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're being a bit inconsistent, aren't you? You lvoted delete for Jordan Haerter for a second-level award, but keep for a third-level one and a couple that are below that. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. Two third-level awards plus five other honours. That's enough for notability in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if third tier and lower decorations were considered for notability (which isn't the case in my experience), two third-level ones would at best equate to one second-level one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's productive to compare decorations and say two of one are worth one of another or whatever. I think we have to judge highly-decorated individuals who have received multiple decorations at various levels on a case-by-case basis. And my own feeling is that Stutz's decorations taken together do make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - marginal notability. could be sourced better. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC) (striking out vote of confirmed, and now blocked, sockpuppet). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "'Please Don't Forget My Dad'". Fort Scott Tribune. 1971-12-06. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
2. "Atchison Folks Honor POW as 'Mo-Kan Man". Lawrence Journal-World. Associated Press. 1972-01-19. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
3. "POW Nominee For Mo-Kan Man of Year". Atchison Daily Globe. 1970-12-20. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01 – via Newspapers.com.
4. Bracht, Mel (2000-11-12). "Powerful film tells of POWs". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
5. Stout, Howdy (2010-02-19). "Living the Code: Former POW shares tale with ALS class". The Journal Record. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
6. Ray, Mike W. (2012-09-28). "Former captive recalls past during POW/MIA breakfast". Tinker Air Force Base (United States Air Force). Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
7. "Leroy William Stutz". Military Times. Sightline Media Group. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Leroy W. Stutz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage about the subject in the 1970s when he was a prisoner of war and after he was released. There are articles about him in 2000 the The Oklahoman, in 2010 from The Journal Record, and in 2012 from Tinker Air Force Base.
Although he doesn't pass the essay criteria at WP:SOLDIER, he passes the guideline criteria at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep obvi enough RS, could be better written. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblioworm 17:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Mancilla[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people); he is a priest and teacher without any other contribution or fact to be here. Also there is a lack of independent sources. War ko ^talk 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable priest in a non-notable parish in a teeny-tiny village. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parish priest with no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus for deleting this article. (non-admin closure) Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shermco Industries[edit]

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

Questionably notable and especially unacceptable current state with not much changing since starting (by a "SBellPR") in June 2009. The best my searches was this, this (Books particularly found at page 2, fourth from the top "leading provider of rotating apparatus and electrical power system testing, commissioning, repair, maintenance and training" making it likely one of the best links there), this and this. Pinging Excirial and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep failure to improve is not a reason to delete. It does appear to be a significant company. It has acquired some other companies too. There are some non-press release info out there such as http://dfw.cbslocal.com/video/11166263-eye-on-technology-shermco-industries/ and http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/1314/shermco-industries-inc-v-secretary-of-air-force Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and possibly also WP:CORP. I have added some 5-6 cites, none of those Graeme Bartlett mentions though, and there are more out there for those who want to flesh this out further. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as failing GNG. references for local bizjournals are no better than PR. A video on cbslocal, ditto. A notice of a minor court case involving it, irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping for a balanced consensus and I'm not sure if others are going to comment so would you, Onel5969? SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onel5969 again in case he missed or never got the other ping. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: That kind of pinging is not obviously appropriate. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor Read that first paragraph and that's my intention, "notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". I simply want a better consensus than five and now four votes (removed the one below). Rather than criticizing my AfDs, AfD could use more useful votes (it's worth noting I've been one of the hardest working AfDers so I doing almost all the work myself). SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - reads like an advertisement. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</> See user's page to see they are not an authentic user. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content struck above was posted by a confirmed sock. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Doesn't really matter if I'm pinged or not. I would have looked at this article on Saturday. I usually look at still open discussions on the final day and either close (if they have reached a keep consensus - I'm not an admin so I can't close deletes), comment if warranted, or relist if I think more discussion would be a good thing. Having said all that, on to the article. The article currently has 6 citations, provided by Sam Sailor, 3 of which all deal with the same event. The CNBC article is a very good citation. The other two articles are nice, but very brief and not in-depth. But going through the rest of the citations on News, those were the only 6 good citations on News, the rest were either trivial mentions or press releases. I'm not keen on either of Graeme Bartlett's cites, the second is merely the posting of a lawsuit. Newspapers had nada. Books had only trivial mentions or recaps of the lawsuit versus the Air Force. However, the number of places where the lawsuit is talked about seems to indicate significance. In addition, there's this, and what appears to be several more nice articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Been up 4 weeks and after 3 weeks worth of relisting I don't think discussion's gonna get any better than this, I couldn't see this ever being deleted just because a lack of attention so the obvious outcome is NC. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswaram Temple[edit]

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

Was prodded a few days ago, which was endorsed by clpo13 (which I didn't even know you could do). It was removed without reason today. Prodded for "No references for notability in current article. News provides zero, as does Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JSTOR. It exists, but nothing to show it's notable." The work that has been done since the prod tag was added is unencylopedic in tone and adds nothing to show why this structure is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I am from chenkal village I know the existence of Maheswaram Sri Sivaparvathi Temple. Hence I could say with 100% Guarantee that this article named Maheswaram Temple is 100% genuine. Hence I request you not to delete this article- Sivapriya T S 117.199.5.59 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that it exists is not an argument for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if this gets familiar attention and is thus improved but if not simply delete for now until that can happen as this will familiar attention as soon as possible. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the English-language sources seem to be promotional tourist stuff. One could argue that such mentions would correlate with notability, but I think more would be good. The print sources could be substantive, but I can't guess from the titles. I'm not sure if it's relevant to English Wikipedia, but I would have to assume that most of the useful sources about this would be in non-English sources.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this temple personally and i am a devotee of Maheswaram Sri sivaparvati Temple. This temple is constructed only using Krishna Stone and wood. This is a famous temple for Sivaparvati in South Kerala. I request you to terminate the steps to delete this article as this is genuine.- Arun Manohar MG

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblioworm 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangling Zheng[edit]

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

While the person appears to sufficiently notable, the article was clearly written to be self-promotional. (A corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted for copyright violation, not for lack of notability, but I think that nevertheless should be noted.) The claims in the article are not easily verifiable, and the claims in the external links appear to be incredible. This is one of those situations where, "I am not sure exactly what ground for deletion I'm asserting as such, other than that I know a deletable article when I see it." Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but maybe delete for now as a WP:TNT at best as Books and Highbeam found some links but not much better. Pinging past users Bearcat and Largoplazo and also Chinese user Deryck Chan. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I ever did here was an automated tagging run for a routine maintenance issue, and I have nothing whatsoever to offer about the content or her notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a personal CV, not an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend delete without prejudice against recreation of a better article. I've found enough sources and am convinced that she's notable: detailed biographical coverage [1][2][3] (all interviews by local news agencies and institutions that she's been involved with - qualify for WP:LOCAL) and some more run-of-the-mill coverage about her business activities and opinions she's given to the media: [4][5][6]. But the article is in such a state that I'd recommend WP:TNT for now, as I don't think any significant portion of it will remain if the article is rewritten to an acceptable state. Der yck C. 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Anthem (song)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for music. Currently contains a lot of original research. The song hasn't been the subject of enough coverage independent of its album to justify a separate article; it can be sufficiently covered in the Kid A article. Popcornduff (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I see nothing here that satisfies WP:NSONGS, just a few excerpts (passing mentions) out of album reviews, a few interview comments, and some random comments about playing it live at concerts. Very little there, and what is relevant, should probably be in "writing/recording/promotion" type sections at the album article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the Article is alright to me, but i would redirect it like Sergecross73 msg me said a few interview comments, and some random comments about playing it live at concerts and not much there> One Day it will be relevant. --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I chose redirect because its a plausible search term, but I really don't see any reasonable expectation for it ever becoming "relevant" (or notable, as I imagine you mean.) Its a non-single from an album that released 15 years ago. Barring any sort of Killing in the Name of crazy re-release situation, it should probably just stay a redirect... Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Angry Bald English Villian Man, it sounds like you're actually voting Redirect, not Keep. Popcornduff (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my comment was initially more of a rebuttal of his point...but then I couldn't quite tell what his stance actually was, so I refactored it into a more general response... Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the recent additions to the article (particularly this one), plus this source and this source, the former of which particularly discusses the song in-depth. This song is a good example of a non-single that deserves its own article. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just any album track, it's from one of the most critically acclaimed bands of all time at the height of their creativity. There's enough decent info in there to sustain the article, it's more than justified despite not directly meeting the key criteria in WP:Song. Much has been written about (radiohead) songs this era and personally, i'm quite surprised there aren't more. The Beatles seem to have articles for each distinct song (sample size: 4 albums, each and every song had its own article) and Radiohead over time will be just as culturally important.Rayman60 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. Aria1561 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think nom's concerns about OR have been addressed, either by removal or by addition of refs. GNG is readily met. And there already seems to be enough material here to warrant a freestanding article (and could certainly be expanded), and the album article is already rather gigantic. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After three relistings, this discussion has ran for over four weeks, but no consensus has emerged herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship[edit]

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

renominating as no participants in last AfD. this article is purely a results listing for a lower level league. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the OP of the first nomination stated, this is very much a test balloon case. Looking at , looks like there's a lot of season-by-season articles for the Sligo, Meath and Dublin senior football championships (Sligo has more than 40), and another handful of counties which have between 1 and 3 season articles. Likewise , Cork has about 19 articles and there's a handful of other counties with a few. Therefore, this discussion here probably influences 100–150 other articles. Ideally we'd let WP:GAA set their own notability guidelines and stick to them, but looking at the project talk page it doesn't appear to be a very active project in terms of discussion. I will leave a message at their project talk page to get some GAA buy-in. Aspirex (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all of that in mind, and making clear that I'm no GAA expert, I would advocate Delete for all. Club level Gaelic games as a whole is the second-tier of an amateur sport, so I put it on the same level as a suburban or country football league in Australia, for which we never write season-by-season articles. (This in-progress deletion discussion demonstrates that we're currently cleaning up some articles like that). I think an article like 2012–13_All-Ireland_Senior_Club_Football_Championship is probably the most appropriate level of detail: it contains all results from the All-Ireland round and the Provincial round, and the result of each of the 32ish county finals. Aspirex (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Policy are you suggesting applies here ? Also it's a top level competition , saying it's a lower level competition is like saying the Premier League is a lower level league of the Champions league Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the top tier, even the article states it is a qualifying level , 2 levels below All-Ireland Senior Club Football Championship. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the Champions League and the Premiership, it's the highest in the county, by winning it you get to play in a different competition Gnevin (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premier league would easily meet WP:GNG in its own right, with daily international coverage during its season. This league would not. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to delete Cavan Senior Football Championship ? Gnevin (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're putting words into my mouth. WP:NSEASONS would apply here too. this is not a top professional league. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GAA is entirely amateur. So of course it's not professional. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gaelic_games doesn't say anything about GAA championships Gnevin (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously the amateurism of the GAA makes it impossible to apply NSEASONS directly, but it's straightforward enough to determine what level of a professional code this is equivalent to. The county championships are clearly a level above the club championships in importance/coverage/crowds/etc., so the All-Ireland Club Championship season is Ireland's second-tier competition. That makes the Provincial Club Championships (of which there are four per code) the third tier, and the individual County Club Championship (of which there are up to 32 per code) the fourth tier, at best. At such a low level, individual season articles which chronicle every game played don't meet the guidelines for lasting notability – the only piece of content with lasting notability is the identity of the winning club and maybe the result of the final match, and a note at Cavan Senior Football Championship and 2012–13_All-Ireland_Senior_Club_Football_Championship is the appropriate place to put this. Aspirex (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is unfair it's like saying the FA Cup is on the 5th tier after the World Cup , European Cup ,Champions league and National League . Club and County are separate. Gnevin (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is based on the assumption that all these competitions are not notable. If this is so why are they covered comprehensively by national media (not just local newspapers)? Some examples from this month alone: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Also the comparison with Australian football is misguided. In Australian football do any of those "suburban or country" football leagues feature players and management who also line out for the bigger teams? Does the Gippsland football league include the captain of the Australia international rules football team? Would the captain of the Australia international rules football team ever be faced with a dilemma because he was due to play for Gippsland on the same weekend, as happened the Irish equivalent two years ago? Or, when vacancies arise, do the larger teams look to the "suburban or country" football leagues to find a manager? Or do "suburban or country" managers feature in national media speculation on the same vacancies? This example mentions a former Dr Crokes boss (a team that participates in the Kerry Senior Football Championship) as a contender for the job of Kerry football manager (the same Kerry that has about 30,000 All-Ireland titles).

most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE of what you'd expect to be reported on sports game during season. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, why is a football season ("2006 West Gippsland Latrobe Football League season") in one sport being used to compare with a competition ("Cavan Senior Football Championship") in another sport? A more accurate comparison might be "2006 Cavan Gaels football season" - which does not appear to exist. I cannot locate any similar articles.) --Benchwarming (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread the nomination. The nomination is for 2014 Cavan Senior Football Championship, which is a direct analogue for 2006 West Gippsland Latrobe Football League season. Cavan Senior Football Championship is an analogue for Gippsland Football League, and the notability of neither of those is up for question. Aspirex (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. The Gippsland article is not a season article like this one. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Churchill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly an actress with some credible roles. Users needs to stop messing non-notability up with a bad state of an article. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. I am also surprised that this very new article was nominated so quickly after creation. Please try to give the creator (and others) time to clean up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please explain how exactly it passes GNG? JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, Davey2010 and SwisterTwister. No notable roles in tv, film or major stage productions. Searches fail WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per career meeting WP:ENT even if seen as weak on GNG. See WP:GNGACTOR. Am working on it and yes... there is more to do for this person who has had major roles in multiple well-received stage productions, and some major enough in her lengthy television career. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. Yash! 01:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per career meeting WP:ENT. This is obviously a new article that is still in development. TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murry Gunty[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this. Pinging past users Robofish, William Avery and GermanJoe and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions, but no serious dedicated coverage William Avery (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. routine mentions only; The edit comment on the first edit indicates the article may have been written by a spa to bring in the rather trivial negative material. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fellow of the American Physical Society is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#3

Shashi P. Karna[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as sure this may seem acceptable at first but I question whether it can be better improved, because the best my searches found was this, this and this. Pinging past tagger Ukexpat and also users interested with this subject Primefac, David Eppstein and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of the American Physical Society should be enough for WP:PROF#C3, and he also has a plausible case for #C1. Article needs cleanup but not badly enough for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep Fellow APS has always been considered here even by itself sufficient reason for a keep, and this should not even have been nominated. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Chan[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found was this, this and this. It's also worth noting this has stayed basically the same since starting in August 2007. Pinging past user Govindaharihari and also users interested with this subject Tokyogirl79, LaMona and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got exactly zero in Booklist, Kirkus, and one PW review. Some of her books are self-published, but others come out of the SciFi branch of Harper's. There is the one interview in Sydney Herald. However, that's not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Multiple novels published by Harpers, each found in two or three hundred libraries is probably just over the borderline for inclusion. There might be reviews in other sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some brief mentions of her in academic journals as an example of Australian writers, but so far it's slow going. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be usable enough as a review, since the site does have an editorial staff and the review was written by one of their staff members. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found mention of her placing on a bestseller list, but I cannot tell so far whether this is a major list or not. It's run in the Newcastle Herald and the article for this paper calls it a tabloid, so I don't really know that this would qualify as one of the bestseller lists that would show notability or not. However I will say that she shows up on the list's national ranking, so there's that going for her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's also hit the list repeatedly, on 4 June 2011, May 11, 2013, and so on. In any case, I have found where she placed on a bestseller list published through the Sunday Telegraph on 12 May 2013, which matches up with the one via the Newcastle Herald. That gives more authority to the NH list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review here. It looks like it should be usable since the site has a staff, the article was written by a staff member, and the author was up for a Ditmar Award for her work with the zine. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found just enough out there to where I think she'd pass notability guidelines for the most part. There are also things like this article, which while brief, gives off the impression that she's a fairly big author in Australia. To a lesser degree there's stuff like this article at Teen Ink, which I didn't include since I'm not as familiar with this site. I used to use the reviews there, but I'm unsure as to how usable they are now. In any case, we have two newspaper articles and four reviews, which should be enough. In all fairness, these were sort of difficult to find so I can see where her notability might have been in doubt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the better sources I found about her are:

Clark, Blanche (16 January 2010), "Chan martials magic art", Herald-Sun

Green, Sue (10 September 2006), "World of her own", South China Morning Post

Nahrung, Jason (28 April 2007), "Walking among the gods", The Courier-Mail

Those with access can get more from AustLit eg. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EcoStiletto.com[edit]

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

Although I'm one of the most passionate environmentalists you'll find, this article is questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. It's worth noting that when the author started this in March 2010, they said at the talk page the article may need more work but to not delete but frankly I'm not seeing much better here. Pinging past users MrOllie, Eastmain and Ged UK as well environmentalist Velella and lastly DGG in case he would like to comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. altogether insufficient references for notability. The usua,l combination--some are not truly independent, some are mentions. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very very thinly disguised advertisement. This is nothing about the environment but rather about about selling, fashion and "beauty". But, regrettably, those are not reasons for deletion. However, the lack of anything significant in the refs, all passing mentions, and regurgitated press releases - often with appalling English ("...an super chic online magazine..." from Cosmopolitan) - is a good reason. No merit here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was only involved in this to decline a speedy request as it had enough to pass A7, which is a lower standard. This doesn't look up to much on first glance from a GNG standpoint. Ged UK 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Antigng (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin P. Chavous[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches was this, this, this and this. Not only would the current article need to be changed and improved, the current version is simply not comprehensible as to why we should keep this. Pinging past users KCinDC (author), Stevenmitchell and Tim1965 and also users who seem to be interested with these subjects MBisanz, Bearcat, Bearian and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established practice is that members of the Council of the District of Columbia are notable. There are articles on all other current and past members. --see [List of members of the Council of the District of Columbia]]. The analogy is with the city council of a large city, and with a state legislature-- the Council is neither of these, but unique, but the analogy is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is correct that Washington, D.C. is in the narrow range of internationally important global cities for which we do accept the city councillors as effectively getting an automatic WP:NPOL pass — but SwisterTwister also has a valid point in that even a no-brainer keep, like a President of the United States, still wouldn't get to keep an entirely unsourced article. We have seen hoax articles created in the past about people who didn't actually hold the political office they were claimed to have held (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Snipplet), so we can't just let an article sit on zero sourcing just because it claims an NPOL-satisfying office — some actual sourcing does still have to be present in the article to properly verify the truth of the claims therein. A notability claim is never, in and of itself, the thing that actually gets a person over a notability criterion — the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim is how a person passes the inclusion test, not the mere fact that an unsourced claim of notability has been asserted. So I'm willing to switch to the keep side if the article sees sourcing improvement by closure — but it's a delete, per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, if it still looks like this seven days from now. Albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can redo it properly. Keep per Tim1965's significant, and very barnstar-worthy, content and sourcing improvements — from zero references to 59 references in a matter of a few hours is a work of art. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — The article is already vastly improved after just a couple hours' work. (I will probably finish it in a day or two; real life intervenes early this week.) - Tim1965 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks for the ping - city council members of world-class cities such as DC are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblioworm 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XHUGTO-TV[edit]

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

Incomprehensibly written article (sample: "In 1949 Canal 10 has it has launched TV Starion in México Now is ancient in 1975 Canal 10 in México Now is The televisión 2007 compra TV English Shop TV it has Channel Shop in intercable in 2007 2008 Oncevision has remplaced in channel in 2009 it has vive 11 English It lives 11 TV now is right back") about a television station in Mexico, whose existence is completely unverifiable even on a Google search. I can find exactly two traces of even the slightest suggestion that this even exists; one is a Facebook page with no actual content on it besides a couple of unanswered "what does this television station broadcast?" questions, and the other is an editwar beginning in September of this year at es:Uriangato — the same editor who created this article, using the same username there as here, first added the station to a new "media" section of that article on September 2, following which another editor removed this station from the section, lather rinse repeat. The original editor's talk page on es: is filled to the brim with "don't create hoax articles" warnings, which does not exactly bolster my faith in the credibility of this creation either. Delete unless somebody can actually find the proper reliable sourcing to verify that this actually exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mexican TV stations don't have six call letters, period, nor do they have XU calls (they can only have XE or XH prefixes), along with the usual 'learn something about market restrictions' nonsense; Viacom would never have a chance at owning a broadcast station in Mexico due to strict foreign ownership laws. It also looks like they're continuing to hoax (just had to reel this one back), so a block is suggested for this user. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement here. Pinging fellow Spanish speaker Vrac (como va tu dia? ). SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as hoax. User is currently blocked on eswiki for adding bogus information. bien bien gracias Vrac (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated another of their creations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XEMGT-TV. Vrac (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblioworm 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)[edit]

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

This process is years away from beginning and there is absolutely no credible information to reference this article. Chris1834 Talk 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing confirmed yet. As soon as FIFA announce the process for qualification, then re-create. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON. After the regulations for qualification have been announced, the article can be recreated. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure crystal. Nothing encyclopedic to say at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is simply WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Qed237 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sépage[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, product is still in beta, 50k euros in revenue for q1 2015, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Has been mentioned in French RS but coverage lacks depth. Deleted from frwiki for failing their equivalent of WP:CORP. Apparent COI. Vrac (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; COI issues are significant but TOOSOON really is the governing one for deletion. Le Figaro article for example has 5 brief sentences on this entity. — Brianhe (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better and oh let me ping User:Vrac but I see he's here anyway {smiley}}. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 00:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Sriram[edit]

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

Not Enough Content ,No Valid Source, No Image ,A9 , Not Important To Wikipedia Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not enough for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly meets WP:NMUSIC. Agree, the article is weak in terms of sourcing but that doesn't necessarily mean we should delete the page. Coming to the nominator's rationale – "Not Enough Content ,No Valid Source, No Image ,A9 , Not Important To Wikipedia", the article clearly has a content and is good enough to identify the subject, lack of images isn't a valid concern, A9 is irrelevant here. On a side note, the nominator seems to have made another faulty AFD. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately no RS. The one seeming RS, The Hindu, is an interview and therefore doesn't support notability. There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds, of online music sites, both those that stream and those that report, but until we have some way to evaluate those we'll need to stick to standard sources. As I read in Billboard, he hasn't yet released on a known label and thus has not charted. This is probably too soon. Possibly up and coming, but not yet up and came. LaMona (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, SwisterTwister, and particularly LaMona's excellent analysis. Searches turned up nothing from reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The findings here show promising results and the article has the potential to be improved. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Marshall[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources regarding this individual (some hits on books, but appear to be mirrors of this wiki article). Would definitely withdraw nomination if any credible sources can be provided, but article has remained unreferenced since 2009. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, though there are mirrors of this article online. The article was created in a single edit in 2009, and that was the only thing that editor ever did. I suspect a hoax, but will be happy to change my mind if reliable sources emerge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my recommendation to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I am finding some mention of him in the press here, where there was an exhibition centered around him. However if there is reason to believe that this is a hoax, we'll need something in a more authoritative source, like an academic text. It wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to hoax us and ended up gaining some coverage in the media claiming it was real. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also mention of him here, or at least this is likely to have been him. I hate to be suspicious but after stuff like this I can't help but be a little skeptical when we have someone with a historical claim that has only really received recent notice in the media. There's really no paper trail for this person and normally if someone is of historical significance there'd be something out there, especially a mention here or there in a trusted academic source-type setting, even if it was brief. Other than the book mention (which as the Atlantic article can tell you, can be faked) I can't really find anything that isn't terribly recent. I'll hold off making a definitive judgement just yet, though. Maybe someone else can find something? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, uncovering a little more with mentions here and here. Both of these pre-date the article, so the more of these we can find, the better since while these may not necessarily show notability, more sourcing means that he likely did exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP~~Probable~~ keep This [7] is interesting. His name is scratched into the wall of a prison in Tasmania. From a source with which I am not familiar. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: [8] There is an enduring fascination with these transported convicts, one which I entirely understand. I searched using his name + Colwick as a keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More details here: [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justificaiton for keeping is the enduring interest, manifested both by the fact that his release from Tasmania to the Australian mainland was covered back home in the Nottingham paper, and the fact that 2 centuries later, there was a museum exhibition about him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the findings above show that he existed, there isn't much to show notability nor any article to mention him in. The riots he was charged for appear to only have a sentence in Reform Act 1832 if that is the correct one and I don't think there is a separate article for the Nottingham riots. The two news sources are local from the places he is most connected with (Nottingham and Hobart). [10] has more details about the event but it says it was submitted by a descendant of Thomas Whittaker, there does not seem to be an article on him either. May be important as a part of local history but not for Wikipedia. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG since he's discussed in several different reliable sources, including at least one historical journal that covers Australian studies, and his life continues to be explored in historical exhibitions, as other editors have noted. I've added some references to the article. ABF99 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with ABF99 that this passes WP:GNG. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, sourced, notable issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: There are still delete comments so I don't think it can be keep'd just because of the withdrawal but there is consensus after that. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying and Managing Project Risk[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR produced a few hits, but all minor mentions. Books returned the best results, but no in-depth coverage of the book, simply confirmation that it exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - after Tokyogirl79's excellent sourcing work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete it seems as I see no better improvement and it seems Todd Williams (User:Toddwill), the author was somehow connected to this, and there simply has been no improvement since then. Notifying RHaworth and Ronz SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy delete, but due to lack of references a regular delete is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one review, so maybe there's more? I did prune all of the OR out of the article, or at least the lengthy, lengthy OR sections. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a while, but I found some reviews via my school's database, which is pretty exhaustive. I also scrubbed the article pretty thoroughly since it was written more as a personal review or study guide for the book. I don't have a problem with some of it being re-added, but in far, far smaller doses than what was in the article and with sourcing, since it did come across as a bit OR. I don't doubt that what was in there was correct, but it needs to be more encyclopedic. Anywho, there's enough now to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Anyone think it fails NBOOK at this point? --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG which is now reflected in article thanks to Tokyogirl79 Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BKCRIT criteria #1 per the four book reviews added to the article by Tokyogirl79. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Onel5969, SwisterTwister, and RHaworth: request to revisit the discussion per new sources found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the ping, Northamerica1000. As the nominator, I got notification of Tokyogirl79's work on the article. However, unlike other articles where I can actually go and verify those references, I get shut out of looking at 3 of the 4 that they added (you have to belong to Drexel). The fourth looks good, but is from a trade magazine, which doesn't list its criteria for book reviews (only technical articles). It could be the same process, but I'm not sure. Not only do I AGF with Tokyogirl79, but I have seen her excellent work on other articles (and have withdrawn nominations if I felt the withdrawal was appropriate). I would withdraw this nomination, but don't think it' proper to do if I can't verify the work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you copies of the articles, if you need me to. I'd post them in the userspace, but I'm not sure if they'd be considered copyvio or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sent 'em out! Check your email! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood bibliography[edit]

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

The article is a list of five books, four of which are already listed at Clint Eastwood#Bibliography. With no edits in over 20 months (and only three in total), the article doesn't look likely to change anytime soon. It's notability is questionable; I don't think a separate article on this topic is necessary. Perhaps a redirect to Clint Eastwood#Bibliography would be more suitable. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. The section in the main article is much more complete. The fifth book could be added there if it's significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two bibliographies are now significantly different. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. sst ✈ 06:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing merger which is not deletion. This discussion is already larger than the page in question and so is just making matters worse. Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Note also that Google Books lists over 200 books with Clint Eastwood in the title so this current draft is just a start. I have just doubled the number of entries and there's plenty more out there. For example, see Clint Eastwood: A Bibliography of Materials in the UC Berkeley Library. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson, SK#1 has changed—it's fine for nominators to propose redirect/merge instead of deletion. czar 16:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Andrew D. In fact I'd encourage more bibliographies on major actors like this as they make wikipedia a better resource. the job of wikipedia is to give people access to the world's information and links to books with isbn numbers makes it valuable for researchers for finding material on a given subject. Most of those film director bibliographies need development but I haven't got around to it.. They're notable directors, most of which can be expanded. This url tool will make it quicker to expand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/questions, does this article meet WP:LISTN? ie. " Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.." At Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies an example given is Bibliography of fly fishing with 3 books shown that discusses fly fishing books as a group. Are there similar books available that discuss Eastwood books as a group? Also, comments about there being lots of books out there about Eastwood which would overwhelm the actor's article so we should have a standalone article have a look at WP:LSC - "it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." and "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true: ... Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this passes WP:LISTN because bibliographies of this sort appear in works such as Persistence of Double Vision: essays on Clint Eastwood, Clint Eastwood: A cultural production and Clint Eastwood: a biography. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew Davidson, this is therefore a Keep as the above shows it meets WP:LISTN. May I suggest the above books are incorporated into the article either as further reading or as references to some of the books listed, as appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just incorporated material from the Clint Eastwood bibliography/further reading sections as well as several others I found. It's clearly a notable topic per the WikiProject Bibliography guidelines and WP:SALAT. There are sources which cover works about Eastwood together and many, many works about him that would overload the article about him and eventually require spinning off. I do sort of get nominating it at the point at which it seemed like an impoverished version of a section of the article, but at this point it seems like a clear keep. @Rhain1999, Clarityfiend, SSTflyer, and Johnpacklambert: would you reconsider your delete !vote based on the expansions made since then? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tare Munzara[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although on the weaker side. Source examples include News Day, Swazi Observer, Times of Swaziland. Another option is to merge to Miss Heritage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I suppose although weak because the other option was to redirect to Miss Heritage. Pinging past user Thomas.W and also Wikicology who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appears to meet WP:BASIC per evidence provided by NorthAmerica1000. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accession of Papua New Guinea to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS is mere speculation at this point Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah yes, it's always a mistake to say in the lead of an article that the subject is a matter of speculation. Fixed. Close open close open (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, sourced, notable issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Papua New Guinea-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid, sourced, notable issue. Indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinds (doctor)[edit]

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

Very little coverage of his life, only references are about his death, prior to dying he would not be notable. Murry1975 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Anyone searching for information on him will likely first find a huge number of hits for webpages that had been published following his death. Understandable in the context of there being so many people who were moved by the tragedy of his death. But it would be wrong to make the assumption that he was not notable. I have added a range of reliable sources to the article, published before his death, which give some indication that he enjoyed some significant coverage. He clearly passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Continuing on what was said above, and as the creator of the article, I think that he should be kept. He was a great pioneer in head and neck injuries after motorcycle helmets. It may not be well documented online, but he collected data on the removal of motorcycle helmets after accidents. In the medical community and motorcycle community he enjoyed a lot of notability for his work. He even published a paper on removing helmets and leathers directly after accidents!^[1]Rhumidian (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) • contribs) 00:33, 2 November 2015[reply]

Keep - he was an acknowledged expert in his field, even if not a tenured professor. WP:PROF does not require all elements. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn nomination by opposing deletion. The original copyright issue has been fixed and no-one else has recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Hiramoto[edit]

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

Objectivity disclaimer: I am an active administrator of the Prison School unofficial wikia and an active editor at the Wikia domain, I have linked to my Wikia identity under the handle Speedit.

NB: I would not be initiating this deletion request if I didn't believe deletion was likely according to Wikipedia policy.

The artist is notable, however the page is a verbatim copy of another existing article of Wikia content. No acknowledgement was given of this in the edit summary and though I have tagged the article, I object to the use of this content on the site in its current form under WP:COPYPASTE.

As the page is not really rewritable to fix the problem, I propose that the page be deleted to be replaced by a stub of content from Prison School and Me and The Devil Blues. This would then be rewritable with translated text from the Japanese article. This would ensure that the article is of the quality and originality required for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are mainly based on secondary sources so there is an absolute limit to originality, but it is possible to write a new article that is more encyclopaedic and less biased in terms of the lifetime works of the author.

The article at the wiki is my work in content and while it is of a correct standard for inclusion for a wikia, it is not of such for Wikipedia. A few of the sources fail source attribution, the article violates WP:NPOV at the first sentence ("professional"), some technical terms and organization names are incorrect and it contains original research in the synopses.

The article also does not have the correct format as seen in Eiichiro Oda-sensei's page, this alone would condense it to approximately half its length. The birthdate ~~could be~~ is indeed wrong, ~~I think~~ the online Japanese sources do' state a year only.

Notably, there is no template on Wikipedia that allows the verbatim usage of a free article from another source, so that suggests there is a status quo against this already.

Speeditor talk 20:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As the WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:COPYPASTE violation has been cleared up as explained here, I kindly object to its deletion. Speeditor talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) edited Speeditor talk 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prison School, as there is absolutely nothing in the instant article other than the subject's authorship of that work. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would be a possibility at this time without expansion, but the page could undergo expansion to avert this issue. Speeditor talk 23:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no strong opinion on whether the individual warrants an article or not, but on the copyright issue: we absolutely do allow the verbatim usage of free articles from other sources. See WP:FREECOPYING, {{CC-notice}}, etc. Now, I would tend to advocate against that practice for the other reasons raised by the nom, namely differing standards between us and those sources, but it's not a copyright violation and the edit-history doesn't need deleting - just attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Nikkimaria: I agree with you in not advocating that practice for quality reasons, but I have directed users on the Wikia domain to avoid unattributing Wikipedia. From Wikipedia's response on this and CC being a copyright license, I think its possible to notch a violation. The inclusion of it in the edit history is justified though & I tagged it with {{Wikia}} before initiating this process. In general, Wikipedia is a huge target of people copying stuff from it - I appreciate that Wikipedia is unique in its proactive removal of copyright-infringing content. Speeditor talk 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many major works should an author have to be notable? Media Arts DB [11] lists him for 32 volumes of ja:アゴなしゲンとオレ物語 and 15 volumes of Prison School. About four volumes each of 3 works and 1 volume each of 3 others. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per SK#1 with this edit: [12] To clarify, is the nominator now objecting to this being deleted? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rahman Alemi[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:FILMMAKER. Searches turn up mainly social media. There are a couple sites, including the only citation in the article, which merely mention him on the festival program. Jbh ^Talk 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better at this time. Pinging tagger Jhona43 and Sam Sailor. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ping, SwisterTwister, I never got it though. Seems to be {{U}} that does not always work. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything reliable that would bring us up to WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong venue - WP:RFD is thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory VI of Constantinople[edit]

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

This should be redlink, not redirect. Sige |д･) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to WP:RFD (redirects for discussion) Siuenti (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per below Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vüsal Hüseynov[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article has been listed for translation at WP:PNT for 14 days without progress, but the translation notice keeps being removed. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia where content must be written in English. The current article should have been added to the Azeri Wikipedia. There is consensus that untranslated articles get proposed for deletion after two weeks when no effort has been made to translated them to English. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have also had to restore the translation tag numerous times, but it keeps on getting removed for no apparent reason. I wonder if he doesn't understand English and thinks we're in the wrong by restoring it? If this is the case, it should probably be moved to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has now requested that the article be transwikied to the Azeri Wikipedia so I created az:Vüsal Hüseynov. I think we can now speedily delete the version over here. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblioworm 17:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shravya Varma[edit]

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

Stated to have worked on "several" films, but her IMDb entry gives only two credits. I don't think that she can be considered notable for this. There is a lack of coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources online – apart from the one interview with The Hindu, all I could find were picture sites, directory listings and so on. Certainly none of this provides significant coverage as required by notability guidelines. I do not believe that the subject of this article satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 15:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a regular person doing regular job. Not notable. This page was earlier deleted in CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides not being notable, it was started by a now-banned sockpuppet DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. Notifying tagger Shrikanthv. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A long and drawn out debate... I'm aware there's probably been at least a little canvassing here, but it looks to me that consensus has been drifting towards keeping this article. I would suggest creating some kind of guideline for articles such as these in light of recent AFD nominations of similar articles to this one. — foxj 01:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tillman[edit]

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

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

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

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

Biography for an individual who was the oldest living person in the world for five days. As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier amongst other pages, being the oldest person alone is not sufficient for notability (Tessier was the oldest living person, oldest living woman, obviously, oldest Frenchwoman ever, and oldest nun and that wasn't sufficient). I note that all the coverage here qualifies as WP:ROUTINE obituary-like coverage that would be expected and nothing lasting. Finally, I think WP:NOPAGE applies and this would at best be a redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is NOT a valid argument. Furthermore, Augustine Tessier was not thought to be the world's oldest person when she was alive, because Shigechiyo Izumi was thought to be the W.O.P. She is only recognised retrospectively because Izumi's claim has since been found to be fraudulent. So, it's not a fair comparison. Your reasoning doesn't make sense: Tessier is not notable because of a lack of sources, but when faced with someone who is covered by sources, they're not notable because another W.O.P wasn't notable. Sorry, but if you want to determine whether someone meets WP:GNG by looking at the sources, then this person does. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But see Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Precedent_in_usage: I am pointing out prior cases. Tillman is basically the same as Tessier then, she wasn't known as the world's oldest person at the time of her death either. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination) as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes she was. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Tillman was known or she wasn't known? Either way, we look at the sources that exist, not speculate on whether sources could or even should exist based on our beliefs about whether they were relatively known or not. In both cases, they aren't notable because the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom. Longevity alone is not notable. A list exists to accommodate information about this person and is more appropriate than a stand-alone page. Nothing in the "sources" or text suggests any encyclopedic reason for inclusion and the absence of multiple, independent reliable sources other than routine coverage in obits suggests policy-based reason for deletion. David in DC (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Longevity alone is not notable" --> According to what consensus? You keep saying this but outside sources disagree, otherwise the world's oldest people would not be frequently reported on in the news. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I use the word "notable" as it is defined on Wikipedia, WP:N. This is not governed by consensus. It's definitional. Please read the policy. It's not about the every-day usage of the word. Reasonable people can differ about whether this person is notable in the every-day usage. But as to Wikipedia rules, it's not even a close call. The references on the page are five obituaries for the subject and one for her predecessor "title-holder" in the mythical contest for longevity. Of the five, two are by the same author. One is longer, for the New York Times, and one is shorter, for the International Herald-Tribune, which, at the time, was half-owned by the Times. These two are hardly independent of one another. Of the three remaining obits, one is an AP wire service story. The other two, from the BBC and the LA Times, cover basically the same facts. There simply is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And that's what "notable" means here. David in DC (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the consensus with Tessier, Okubo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination) and other discussions. As I asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde, can you point to an example of a consensus that longevity alone is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the consensus with Misao Okawa, Jeralean Talley, Gertrude Weaver, Sakari Momoi, and Ethel Lang, where the consensus in each case was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping those articles? Only you and David in DC voted to delete. Quite frankly, that says more about your misinterpretation of WP:GNG than it does about the notability of the world's oldest people. Bob Taggart was only the oldest man in Scotland when he died, so that's not a fair comparison. Augustine Tessier (which you have frequently cited elsewhere) was also not a fair comparison because she was not known to be the world's oldest person when she was alive. Even the decision to delete Antonio Todde was contentious in my view (the closing admin admitted the article could be restablished if more sourcing is found). What is pretty evident is this: in general, longevity = coverage in reliable sources. Longevity does equate to notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and retract, as to my !votes. In four of the five cases you cite, I did not participate, let alone !vote to delete. David in DC (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was talking about them collectively, not meaning that you voted to delete in all of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's agreed that coverage in reliable sources = notability. Longevity is not the relevant criteria. Some of the oldest in the world have survived, some has not; some of the world's oldest in a country have survived, some have not. I think we can all agree on that at least. It's no different than some of the tallest people on earth have articles but not most of them I imagine. The end result will probably be a result of systemic bias where the most recent people who died in English-speaking countries with obviously internet-available sources will be kept while older and more obscure individuals won't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this context I think it's best to avoid use of the word survived without further qualification i.e. perhaps you should say survived AfD. I think you can see why... EEng (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not develop General Notability Guidelines for "people noted for longevity alone"? We have GNGs for sports figures, politicians, and even TV characters. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to develop one then. My view is longevity is not sufficient for an individual article on the person. It is sufficient for the concept or idea of the longest living person as reliable sources indicate but not for the individual articles. I don't see the point in developing something that basically says "any claims that they are notable should be ignored and we should rely back on the WP:GNG standards". The point of those is to clarify a fine-line where the GNG already is going to be settled and we don't have that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes notability standards. Emma Tillman is clearly famous than Augustine Tessier who died more than 30 years ago. also, personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not good reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sorry but how is she more famous than Tessier? Is it just because she died more recently and we have some more sources now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely notable but WP:NOPAGE. "Tillman ran her own baking and catering service whose regular customers included Dr. Thomas Hepburn, a noted Hartford Hospital urologist and father to actress Katharine Hepburn"‍—‌worthless padding. EEng (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Was the oldest person in the world for FIVE DAYS. Not minutes, not hours but DAYS. Clearly very notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.106 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)— 166.171.122.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a "tentative keep"? ~~"Pending review by GRG"? No. GRG is not the default source for notability on Wikipedia.~~ Notability is defined here as having significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject. ~~GRG governs what goes on the multiplicity of GRG tables, not what is included here.~~ There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding among some !voters about the meaning of "Notability" as it is defined on Wikipedia. We're not talking about notability in the dictionary sense of the word. As to that reasonable people can differ. But here we're talking about a pillar of our project, well-defined for our common purpose, and routinely ignored, brushed aside or misapprehended by members of the WOP Wikiproject and others advocating for the notability of various people who've won a mythical contest. Longevity is a topic for serious encyclopedic coverage. The various record-breakers and title-holders are not, unless they meet our general notability guidelines. ~~Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service the GRG.~~ David in DC (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the portion of my comment that reflects my inability to read capital letters. I apologize to Montanabw for misconstruing their comments and thank Ollie231213 for setting me straight. D'oh! David in DC (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I keep emphasizing, there's still WP:NOPAGE to consider‍—‌even if notability is there, subjects about whom there's so little to say may be best treated in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some already are (such as List of supercentenarians from the United States but for those who have been covered more widely in the media, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have a standalone article. These are not characters from a TV show, they are all individuals who are covered individually. Just because they are notable for the same reasons doesn't mean they can't have their own articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't have their own article because a standalone article isn't the best way to present the tiny amount there is to say about them. As NOPAGE says:

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

EEng (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: The user Montanabw said "GNG", not "GRG". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes Montanabw's comments even less sensible. What does "pending review of GNG" even mean? EEng (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrs. Tillman received media coverage from at least the age of 110 up to her death at age 114+, thus spanning more than four years, in a variety of sources (nwespapers, video reports, and internet articles, among others); earlier in this thread, David in DC identified/defined Notability as "having significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, independent of one another and of the subject". In my mind, Mrs. Tillman's media coverage is a perfect example of that definition, and as a result she would qualify for WP:GNG.Fiskje88 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you point to the coverage from her age 110? It would be coverage from 2003 or so. All the articles cited here are from 2007 when she died at 114 or later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From November 2003: http://www.journalinquirer.com/archives/at-she-s-living-history/article_b764938f-8a92-5e75-9269-a1689abbbc07.html

coverage as requested

"At 110, she's living history

EAST HARTFORD — The year was 1893. Grover Cleveland was completing the first year of his second term as president of the United States, Jim Crow laws and frequent lynchings oppressed Southern blacks, and a devastating depression gripped the economy. Posted: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:00 am By Joe Ax | 0 comments It was into such a world that Emma Faust Tillman was born to a pair of North Carolina sharecroppers and former slaves. On Thursday, Tillman celebrated her 110th birthday with dozens of friends, relatives, and well-wishers at the Riverside Rehabilitation and Health Center, where she has lived for several months. "All these people here are my friends, both black and white," she said, smiling faintly. It is difficult to fathom just how long 110 years is. Consider, for example, that John F. Kennedy was assassinated on Tillman's 70th birthday on Nov. 22, 1963. Tillman received a proclamation from Gov. John G. Rowland on Wednesday announcing that Saturday — her actual birthday — shall be known as Emma Tillman Day. On Thursday, Mayor Timothy D. Larson stopped by with one of his own, honoring the super-centenarian. Town Councilman Donald H. Pitkin, who is a mere 82, brought Tillman 110 roses. "I've never seen that many roses together at one time," she said. People are constantly asking for her secret, but she claims she has no idea. She is not the only member of her family to reach the century mark — her brother, Eugene, lived to be 108, and two of her sisters also reached 100. She still has one sister in New Jersey who is rapidly approaching 100. Tillman is one of the oldest people in the world. According to London-based Guinness World Records, the oldest person is Charlotte Benkner of North Lima, Ohio, who turned 114 Nov. 16. When Tillman and her siblings were young, their father, Alphonso, asked them to promise never to drink or smoke. They agreed, and Tillman has kept her promise to this day. "Is that water?" she asked suspiciously as a family member drank a clear liquid. When another handed her ginger ale for a toast in her honor, she eyed it carefully before trying a sip. According to a short family history by historian Kathleen L. Housley, the surname "Faust" was actually the name of the plantation owner who owned her parents, and the Fausts adopted it as their own following the Civil War, as was commonly done. When Tillman was 7, her family decided to escape the South and make its way north to Glastonbury. Though she attended school, she was the only black girl at Glastonbury High School, and when she entered the work force, she used her talents in the kitchen to become first a cook and then later a caterer, sometimes serving meals for state dignitaries, said her daughter, Marjorie, who is herself in her 70s. One of her earliest jobs was as the cook for the Hepburn family, where she got to know Katharine Hepburn as a young girl, even accompanying the family to a summer home. She also once baked a cake for Jackie Robinson, who was visiting her church, Marjorie Tillman said. "He said he hadn't had cake like that since his mother made them when he was a child," she said. Robinson was so impressed that he offered Emma Tillman tickets to some Brooklyn Dodgers games, which she happily accepted. Asked whether she ever expected to reach 110, she smiled. "I ain't going nowhere," she said.

November 2004.

http://broadcast.organicframework.com/p/In-The-News-Turn-To-10- 111YearOld-Celebrates-Birthday___188,18591.html

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041119/NEWS01/411190313/1002

Timeless wonder

By DAVID PENCEK Norwich Bulletin

Photos by John Shishmanian/Norwich Bulletin

Emma Tillman of Hartford, left, celebrates her 111th birthday with her daughter, Marjorie Tillman, 78, of Hartford, center, at Foxwoods Resort Casino. The casino gave her a cake and Toni Parker-Johnson, director of Public Relations, slipped her a $100 bill. --------------

MASHANTUCKET-- Emma Tillman hadn't experienced a birthday party like this since, well since she celebrated her 110th birthday.

Since Tillman turned 100 nearly 11 years ago, Foxwoods Resort Casino has thrown one of its most loyal patrons a party. On the cusp of turning 111, Tillman and a busload of friends and family traveled from Hartford Thursday and made what has become their annual visit to Foxwoods.

The casino had a cake for Tillman, whose birthday is Monday, and presented her with gifts. She then went to play the slots and spent the afternoon at the casino.

"I just like being here," the soft-spoken Tillman said as she sat in her wheel chair. "I'm glad to be here."

Tillman began visiting Foxwoods when it was just high-stakes bingo. She made the trip once a month and continued coming when Foxwoods turned into a casino. She only visits once a year now -- to celebrate her birthday.

Anyone who has lived as long as Tillman obviously has many experiences and stories to tell, but how many other's experiences include making breakfast for a president of the United States or meeting a young woman who would become one of the country's great actresses.

As a caterer, Tillman cooked breakfast for President Franklin Roosevelt when he visited Hartford. She also worked for the Hepburn family and met Katharine Hepburn when she was just 19.

"I used to go to the beach and be there with her," Tillman said of Hepburn.

Tillman lives in a retirement community in Hartford. She was born in North Carolina, but her family moved to Glastonbury when she was 7. She had two daughters, one passed away while her other daughter Marjorie was present at Thursday's celebration.

"She likes it laid back," Marjorie said. "She continues to listen to music and she loves reading books. Friends visit her and she plays cards."

According to Marjorie, her mother has seven grandchildren, 36 great- grandchildren, 15 great-great-grandchildren and five great-great- great-grandchildren.

Tillman gave some simple advice to those who want to know what it's like to live for more than a century.

"Try to get there," she said. "Try to make it."

http://www.ctnow.com/features/lifestyle/hc-java1120.artnov20,0,5842167.column

Emma Hits 111, And Hits The Slots November 20, 2004

Emma Tillman didn't have much luck at the slots Thursday at Foxwoods Resort Casino, even though she went machine-hopping.

But at 111, you'd still have to call her Lady Luck.

Tillman's birthday is Monday, but Hartford's elder stateswoman couldn't wait to indulge in one of her favorite pastimes, and she made the trek by bus Thursday morning with friends and family from the North Hartford Senior Center.

"It was unbelievable." said John Singletary, a family friend from West Hartford. "She was there from 11 to 5:30."

The casino provided her with a birthday cake, which she enjoyed, but, Singletary said, "She was anxious to get to the machines."

Tillman usually comes home a little ahead, but this time, like other people, she left some with the casino.

Well, there's always next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6530407/

Finally, a happy birthday to Emma Tillman from North Carolina. Emma turned 111 years old yesterday and celebrated in fine style at the Foxwood Indian Casino in Connecticut. The lady likes the slots. Tillman is one of 23 children in her family, seven of whom lived to be over 100. She credits her longevity to a life free of smoking, drinking, and except for the compulsive gambling part, otherwise clean living.

The casino threw the party for Emma. No word if they threw in a roll of quarters. We sure hope so.

November 2005.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15621809&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

Augie Dog[edit]

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

Throughly non-notable animal that should have been speedied but the CSD tag was removed by a "new" user. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This dog is an internet personality and is perfectly relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcupinejoe (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupinejoe, if you could provide some third-party sources that demonstrate this, it would be very valuable to this discussion. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non notable animal. As explained at the article creator's talk page, we've adopted two such dogs from southern kill shelters, but notwithstanding social media pages, beloved pets aren't notable subjects. Sock or meat puppeting is likely here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:7955:2C17:8456:5620 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 An Act of War. My apologies I have absolutely no idea what the hell happened there, As far as I knew I copied the film titled so how it got everything else instead I'll never know!, Anyway I'll reclose with the correct title this time!, Sorry again. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atit Shah[edit]

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

Article began as a promotional vehicle for the subject and his movies, apparently written by a COI account. Since then I pared a lot of the puffery editing as an IP, but there are still few reliable sources here, and those that are mention the subject in passing--no in-depth coverage. Persistent removal of maintenance tags by other accounts. Time for AfD. JNW (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the fellow is spoken of recently in such sources as Variety, Agency Spy, The American Bazaar, India West, India.com, and Back Stage, we might figure that while his career makes the article a bit TOO SOON... but if article issues are addressed with available sources, it might be a suitable stub. A temporary redirect to his film An Act of War could be worth considering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to film or simply delete for now which ever seems better as there's certainly no better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reversed User:Davey2010's non-admin closure, since it appears the redirect target was malformed during closure. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroki Murase[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A relative rookie wrestler who has yet to done anything that would make him notable. No coverage in reliable third-party sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 11:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 11:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any in-depth third-party coverage other than simple results tables, it is hard to see how this article satisfies the basic notability criteria for Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists largely of a wall of text detailing a large number of results, with no third-party references and no indication of notability.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8th (programming language)[edit]

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

Unambiguous promotion of a personal project, no evidence of notability. RonAaron is the main author and editor of this article, and "Ron Aaron" is identified as the designer of the programming language that this article is about. No evidence of notability has been added, nor are any independent sources referenced. Rwessel (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Ruud 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same seems to apply to Reva Forth, as well. —Ruud 10:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Every source I found traced back to ronware.org or aaron-tech.com, Ron Aaron's "Same owner, much better site!" Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. I agree with Ruud re: Reva Forth and just nominated that one to AfD as well. Msnicki (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much convincingly better yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Liswood[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this, this and this but none of these links show convincingly better improvement. Pinging past users Stifle, PamD and MER-C and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longtime chief permanent officer of a major international organization. The rest of the material is a little vague, but she's also notable as an author ,which the article fails to emphasise: Women world leaders : fifteen great politicians tell their stories from a major feminist publisher is in 485 libraries, and two other important books. . DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DGG, but also restructure article so it's more like an encyclopedia article and less like the personal web page from which a lot of it was copied in early edits (eg do away with "Experience" section). PamD 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strip down as per PamD. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Suk Kim[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found was here, here and here and the current version is not simply convincing of better improvement. This simply has not better changed since starting in July 2009. Pinging past users including others who are interested with Christianity StAnselm, Peridon, Phantomsteve, SoWhy, DGG, The Cross Bearer and TexasAndroid. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 47 cites on Google Scholar for Christ's body in Corinth: The politics of a metaphor in this field suggests a pass for WP:PROF #1. St Anselm (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite Looks rather promotional of his philosophy (or do I mean theology?). I'm not actually sure why I've been pinged - my interest in Christianity is from the outside and I've never been part of it. I have a certain fascination with seeing how a few texts can be turned into so many conflicting schools of thought. I do spend a lot of time here dealing with advertising and promotion, and I feel this article comes into that area. Peridon (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. It is not clear that any of the journals that he serves as editor for is notable. It is not clear that any of his works are considered significant in the field or that he is highly respected by his peers. No notable honors have been stated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The author is well-known, per StAnselm above.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as quite frequently cited author, an academic with number of entries in Google scholar and editor or two peer reviewed adamedic journals - he seems to have sufficent notability. The quality of the article is a seperate issue; and yes it does need some attention. But not perhaps as much as alleged. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple books by respectable publishers. Biblical interpretation : theory, process, and criteria is in 441 libraries, quite high for the field, which indicates wide academic use. Christ's Body is in 200, again quite high for the topic. For the humanitieies, its the disssemination of library holding which shows the influence more than the citations. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my own brief searches and as per DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tao of Programming[edit]

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

Couldn't find anything on book publisher, appears to be self-published. Fails WP:NOTE -- lack of significant secondary source coverage about the book that is from independent sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. My mistake, I did a bit more research and was able to find secondary source coverage in a smattering of sources. Admins or other AFD closers, please close this one as withdrawn with my thanks. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LifeBank[edit]

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

I don't think it meets our subject specific notability threshold of WP:ORG. I didn't found any in depth significant coverage. I was about to CSD A7 again when I found an unsourced credible calm of significance in the article. Jim Carter 04:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: Non-notable; the claims of significance in the article are barely significant. "Affiliated with a large bank" might barely be significant for a person, but for a corporation, no. Esquivalience ^t 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of V8 Supercars games[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:LISTN. No reliable sources discuss the set of games featuring cars with a specific type of engine. The1337gamer (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A trivial list overall. GamerPro64 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clean it up and added various links from other pages to the page. SchueyFan (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is definitely valid, and although I'm no racing expert as an Australian living where the sport is popular I can certainly say that V8 Supercars is not just "cars with V8 engines" as the article originally mistakenly claimed; instead it is a touring car racing series and championship and there is precedence for the existence of these type of articles - see List of NASCAR video games and Formula One video games, for example. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It can always be re-nominated if the single fails to meet WP:NSONG. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up and Fish[edit]

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

Unreleased, non-notable song. reddogsix (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, added some sources discussing the song's theme and critical reception. The song is close enough to its release date that there's really no point in redirecting and then undoing it two weeks later (and who says it won't already have charted ahead of the release date)? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is about to be released in a couple weeks and already has enough buzz around it that an article being created early is no biggie. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now sufficiently long and properly sourced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This article should not have been created. Do not reinforce the creation of articles on the grounds that notability will soon exist. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: What part of the article violates WP:CRYSTAL? Nothing contained in the article is speculative in nature. Notability is asserted for the song in that it is confirmed as a single, and its content has been reviewed and discussed by reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album until there's something to justify a separate article. A few mentions in reviews of the album and confirmation that it's going to be released simply aren't enough. --Michig (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Cheng[edit]

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

Not notable: he isn't a Grandmaster nor a national champion; besides, he never won a major open tournament, a World Youth Championship or a Continental championship, never took part in a Chess Olympiad. Sophia91 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find enough reliable sources to suggest that the subject might meet WP:GNG. /wia /tlk /cntrb 21:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philmont Scout Ranch camps. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 05:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abreu Camp[edit]

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

Same reason as Rich Cabins. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Cabins by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) at 01:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC): If Alden Brock is to be deleted, let's get rid of this page too. First off, the only source comes from Philmont itself. Rich Cabins should indeed be mentioned somewhere, but I don't like there being an article for it. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough information If this camp has significant coverage in the book cited in the references^[2] AND if that book qualifies as a reliable, independent source with respect to this camp, then WP:Notability has been met and it should be kept. Otherwise, barring any other significant coverage from a reliable source, I would recommend merging to Philmont Scout Ranch camps#Abreu. No harm in keeping the history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://intensivecarenetwork.com/cases-from-the-races-by-hinds/
^ Rohrbacher, Rock (1997). Philmanac: A trekker's guide to the Philmont backcountry. CSS Pub. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0-7880-1469-2.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It is difficult to see that sub-camps of a major camp are notable independent of the main camp. Only two out of a large number of sub-camps of Philmont have separate articles and neither stand out above the others. Both should be redirected. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lenny Kravitz. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Kravitz[edit]

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

Pretty much all of the press coverage is about his connection to his son, Lenny Kravitz. Is Lenny famous enough for his father to overcome WP:NOTINHERITED? I don't think so. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lenny or simply delete as there's not much to suggest more of an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lenny Kravitz - there is a lot of coverage of him in interviews Lenny gives but not enough to establish his own notability. Also he has only one credit on IMDB (as "self") so I'm wondering what info is out there about him being an NBC producer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above editors. No un-inherited notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katella Dash[edit]

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

non-notable individual, appeared on one episode of Botched —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing better than the usual controversial tabloid news. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ladma[edit]

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

Seemingly NN "small comedy collective." Lots of claims of grandeur but nothing verifiable. Previous AFD result was delete.

I believe this should be deleted under CSD G4, but for some reason it was declined. It doesn't seem like the decliner bothered to read the previous AFD. Saltzman1959's comment there make it clear this is the same "small comedy collective." The Dissident Aggressor 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The decliner did read the prior AFD, which was in January 2007, and noted that the article included plausible claims of significance from October 2007 and from 2008, neither of which could have been addressed in the original AFD. The content of the article is substantially different, and the logic of the original AFD wouldn't apply. Therefore, declining the G4 was a slam-dunk. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'll often simply retag if it is applicable and as for this article, this has existed since February 2008 with no better improvement and frankly I'm not seeing any. Pinging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Ukexpat. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing doing here. Google says nn, the article says nn. Szzuk (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartisan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Indian startup founded in June 2015, SPA-created article. Sources are PR articles and interviews, where founders and investors praise their own new project. Article fails both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for lack of in-depth information from independent non-promotional sources. Google search found no better reference possibilities. GermanJoe (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ec) about the last nomination. Per AfD instructions the nomination should have been closed as "No Consensus" at the very least. A few "sources" obviously exist, but the amount of independent coverage in these sources should also be evaluated. Pinging @Sovereign Sentinel: and @CorporateM: as contributors of the last nomination, and @Samtar: as closer. GermanJoe (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A startup a few months old, for which the only references are that it received startup funding. Given how many startups are not around one or two years later, this one definitely needs more time to mature as it has not yet "made it." WP is not a venue for promotion. LaMona (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per LaMona, and redirect to Cartesian (as a possible misspelling). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jammes "Jamba" Castro[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of references on the page but none of them are significant coverage, most are simply production credits. The best are mere passing mentions. Jbh ^Talk 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although the listing of sources is somewhat astonishing especially considering there's not even something close to better coverage, delete for now until a better article is available (draft and userfy if needed). SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person is a key figure in the Brazilian/American music industry and has made numerous and significant contributions to both. Besides the vast numbers of articles written about him in Portuguese there are a plethora of verifiable sources on the web certifying that he is real. What i would like to question is why are we suddenly ignoring the web as a source of information on people. We are selectively taking at face value what the internet claims to project as solid certifiable information and we are doing it once again with the filter of our prejudices. Has google news cornered the market on what is verifiable? We are ignoring the millions of bloggers that are legitimately contributing to the web. 177.142.210.109 (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's policy on requiring reliable sources to verify the notability of subjects of articles. In this case the subject needs to pass the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for bands and musicians. Blogs and other social media have never been acceptable for documenting notability on Wikipedia. (Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) Jbh ^Talk 19:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains sources that are mostly unreliable. The other sources like this one^WebCite from AcheiUSA Newspaper are passing mentions. My searches for sources ("Jamba Castro" and "Jammes Castro") did not return reliable sources.
The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Host a Murder[edit]

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

While the subject may be notable, the page seems to need nuking from orbit and to be started over again from scratch as it is almost completely copy-and-paste copyvio from beginning to end. The last (barely) acceptable version of the page was back in January 2009, after this point ongoing copy-pasting appears to have started, carrying on and on without anyone noticing. Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: may we have a Template:Copypaste on the article with the source of the seemingly copied text? If obvious copypaste, that content should probably be removed before the article even meets its fate (assuming it does), per WP:DCV. LjL (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it now. Already nuked one section as copyvio. Think this is gonna take a while.... Mabalu (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killed all the obvious copyvio. If this is saved, then the page history needs wholesale deletion all the way back to 2009.... Mabalu (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added one book reference, but from a cursory browsing of Google Books hits it seems to me that this game has been well-known for decades and is certainly notable. Much of the article was a copyvio, but that's not ground for deletion of the article itself (at least the parts that aren't). Copyvio content has now been removed and can be dealt with administratively if needed. LjL (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been listed among video games deletions before but is actually not a video game at all, AFAICS. LjL (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'as it is major old radio broadcasting networks in the Philippines. Can always be nominated in the future if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Wikienglish123 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mareco Broadcasting Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject has no significant coverages in reliable sources, only trivial mentions, saying that it's one of the sponsors of the Philippine Airlines Interclub Golf Tournament. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Page created by -- GB fan 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC) at request of IP on article talk page.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - appears to be radio network that has been around since the 1960s and has a couple dozen stations. Seems to be associated with some kind of record label related to the "golden age" of Filipino music. People knowledgable of Filipino culture needed here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the largest and oldest radio broadcasting networks in the Philippines apparently. It is a subsidiary of award-winning Mareco Inc. that is also engaged in Filipino music records production and owns present-day Villar Records.--RioHondo (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable enough in the Philippines. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal Domínguez[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable, previous AFD result was no consensus but looks like it was nearly delete to me. RJFJR (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sourcing is an issue here. All I've been able to find so far is a passing mention by Raymond Keene in his report on the 1967 World Junior Championship in Chess magazine, where it is mentioned that he was the coach of Argentinian player Victor Brond, and that he advised Brond to withdraw for health reasons. Searching on "ajedrez" instead of "chess" didn't help much. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that deleting this article would accentuate wikipedia's Anglocentric point of view. I've found a few games of his in databases and he was a fine player, able to foot it with Miguel Najdorf and Oscar Panno. It's just that the South American chess scene hasn't historically been very well documented. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no better improvement. I could not find evidence of notability. JugniSQ (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought that a notability could be constructed around his strength. But with an historical best elo by Jeff Sonas of just 2439 I unfortunately cannot see notability for Cristóbal Domínguez. --Gereon K. (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMonk CMS[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable software. Not one of the 16 listed sources is reliable (blogs, self-published information, PR interviews). The initial PROD was rejected by a second SPA account (with 2 edits). No in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are a few sources for this, and it appears to be an established company, but none of the sources are terribly deep or reliable. So reluctantly keeping the the List of Content Management Systems out of my head and thinking only of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I weakly advocate for a delete and take no joy in it. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Software Some of the references do provide deep and unbiased coverage. The article is about a notable niche software and should not be deleted.--Reach.muz (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)— Reach.muz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS, and name 2-3 specific examples for unbiased in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Marketing sites masquerading as independent reviewers don't count. Simple re-publications of company information, even on otherwise reliable sites, don't establish notability either, unless those "reviews" provide additional independent details and research from a qualified author. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some references are from company's own blog, however many references are from CMS Critic which happens to be an important news website about CMS software. This site is known for its unbiased and well researched editorial content which is created by authors who are regarded as an authority on CMS software. I don't think any of the references are from marketing websites portraying themselves as independent sources.--Reach.muz (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Coverage Given that the article is about a niche software, it has been cited with good and reliable references. The article should not be deleted.--Mejames.parker (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)— Mejames.parker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - source review to address the arguments of new editors here, especially the praise for CMS Critic:
- Ref #1 CMS Critic - a quick Google search reveals, that CMS Critic is not seen as unbiased (not even within the branche). More specifically: this are the author's credentials. These are offered services by CMS Critic, aptly labelled as "Advertising and Services". Offers include useful features like pre-review audits, "fixing up" reviewed issues before publishing them, and even opting out entirely from a negative review. Some of those offers are a blatant violation of basic journalistic standards.
- Ref #2 is a general product overview, clearly provided by the company (promotional language)
- Ref #3 is a blogger review by "Emma McGowan: #feminist #blogger #sexpositive" with a "Love/hate relationship with #startups" (quoted from Twitter account).
- Ref #5 is a blacklisted marketing site
- Ref #6 is arguably the best reference in this mess, but contains only a short 1-paragraph summary with a very basic description.
- Ref #7 is authored by a student for Anglistic, Americanistic und Sociology - none of which provides expert knowledge of CMS systems.
- Ref #8 is the company's own blog.
- Not mentioned ref numbers are repetitions of listed cases. So no, none of those sources except #6 meets Wikipedia's criteria for an independent reliable source. Also, Content Management Software hasn't been "niche software" for several years now, this functionality has lots of providers and competing solutions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the concerns about references stated above are valid, however i recommend that the article not be deleted.--Adamsevan (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)— Adamsevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage as show by GermanJoe's reference analysis, even the above user, whose comment can be treated as a "delete" despite his recommendation, seems to agree. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it's notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Trussell[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Subject has requested deletion Ticket:2015102110018369 Mdann52 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. Pinging JzG, Johnbod and TubularWorld. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article history shows 3 refs have been used in the article, none establishing notability. One doesn't mention him, the next is trivial and the last is a fansite. Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Up (company)[edit]

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

This article topic, a video game developer/publisher, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The company was not the subject of non-trivial, independent coverage as a company (per WP:ORG). It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement especially given its age. Pinging users who comment at these subjects The1337gamer and Salvidrim. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name of the company makes it hard to search for sources but I was similarly unable to find anything at all, not even passing mentions. Its most notable game is definitely Coaster Works with the international release (article looks shitty but there are big reviews from IGN, GameSpot out there), but IMO it's worthless as a merge or even redirect target. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LandFort[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unremarkable app that does not seem to meet notability guidelines. The only sources offered are republished press releases and promotional listings of the app, none of which indicate its notability or significance. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article for LandFort is about a new Android game which has been covered by multiple sources. The "Notability" rule is this: No inherent notability "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,"

These are the refence links for that article: 1)GameWorld.gr wrote a news item for the game. This is a fact of notability and significance. 2)The game's profile in SlideDB.com . The game has one of the highest ranks in the world (yesterday it was 2nd in ranks) - http://www.slidedb.com/games/landfort 3)A 2nd news item -> http://www.dwrean.net/2015/10/landfort.html . Another fact of notability and significance. 4)Sites MCVUK and Gamasutra, one of the most well-known in the world, did a re-post of a press releases. Wikipedia doesn't have any rule telling that "A press release re-posting is not considered as a reference" User 331dot doesn't reply in numbers to the conversation that has already started. He has refused twice to reply to points 1, 2 and 3, while insisting that a press release re-publishing is not an importance fact. .(Kotsolis (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2015 (GMT+2)).

I cannot read Greek but from the few snippets of English that I can see, the GameWorld 'story' seems to just be an announcement of the game's release.
Game profiles don't indicate something notable, they just describe the game.
Again, from what I can gather it just seems to describe the game itself.
There are no firm rules here but there are guidelines about what reliable sources are, and the General Notability guideline mentions that press releases are not independent sources of information. They don't establish notability.
I have refused nothing; but I obviously have not been clear enough. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now you have been clear. This is why the article should remain as it is.

1)It's a news item which tells about the game and also 2 updates within the article with 2 videos. Who told you that games that are about to be released don't deserve a place in Wikipedia?
2)In which Wikipedia rule does it mention that game profiles in sites like Metacritic, IndieDB, GameRankings etc. "don't indicate something notable"?
3)It's a news item for the game. What else do you expect? A review or something? There are no notability rules for posting only reviews
4)Notability rules: "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." The reference 4 says

" Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." The notability rules clearly say about "press releases". They don't say anything about "Sites posting news items by just copy-pasting a press release. Whether you want it or not, Gamasutra and MCVUK actually did post a news article! But the editors of those sites copy-pasted a press release that was sent to them. It's a news article either way, with no personal editor comment. (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2015 (GMT+2)).

First review has been added, a 8.1/10. Plus 3 more news links. (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2015 (GMT+2)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Current article sources are unreliable blogs. Only hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are straight-up press releases. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Where did you see the "unreliable blogs"? 1)There is a review by CyprusGamer.com. This is a gaming website, not a blog : http://cyprusgamer.com/landfort-review-android 2)This is an article (not press release) by DroidGamers which is a respected website : http://www.droidgamers.com/index.php/game-news/android-game-news/10092-reclaim-the-kingdom-by-defeating-demonic-hordes-in-landfort-now-available-from-google-play 3)This is an article (not press release) by the biggest greek Technology website, Techgear. It has been placed in 35.000th position in Alexa : http://www.techgear.gr/landfort-android-102431/ 4)An article (not press release) by Gameworld.gr one of the biggest greek gaming websites: http://www.gameworld.gr/component/content/article/179-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82/2014-05-19-05-44-56/22772-landfort

Where exactly did you see "blogs"? I see only websites. Where exactly does Wikipedia define which sites are reliable and which are not? Is there a meter based in Google Analytics, active website years or anything similar? I demand a clear reply. I contribute to Wikipedia for years. If you don't provide the EXACT paragraph of Wikipedia rules which define specific rules about the "reputation" of websites you mentioned (not blogs, because you can't define the difference between a blog and a website) this conversation will be forwarded to all gaming websites and developer forums via mass email, as well as Reddit and various YouTubers. It's already been saved. You are not behaving towards a "Free Encyclopedia" rule, but towards a "Strictly controlled Encyclopedia" where each moderator behaves with the way that he wants. So now that you've learned that those 4 are websites and not blogs, and that they've written articles/reviews and not redirection of press releases, go ahead and prove yourself. (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)). Kotsolis (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom without license. The Free Encyclopedia, in this case, doesn't mean "do as you please"—there are many things Wikipedia is not. The answers to your questions are in my original post: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources explains how sources become reliable, and the video game WP project has vetted sources with a reputation for fact checking and reliability at WP:VG/RS. I could potentially see a case for Gameworld and Techgear, but Droid Gamers and Cyprus Gamers are very clearly hobbyist sites run by hobbyists. As for the rest, I don't see what you intend to accomplish by making threats. I actually took the time to link out my entire rationale if one takes the time to read it. Speaking of policy, our Conflict of interest policy asks that contributors declare any affiliation with the subject on the article's talk page. Since you listed yourself as the author of the game's logo, it would follow that you have some connection with the subject. czar 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kotsolis: Note that canvassing for support, on-wiki or off, is considered disruptive editing and could be considered harassment. Making threats will not build support for your position. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: - I don't have any connection with the game, Iam just greek and I support greek games. - There was no other way of uploading the game's logo than declaring it's mine. I found it from their Facebook page. I don't think that the developers would disagree by listing their game on Wikipedia. - DroidGamers.com was founded 5 years ago and has higher Alexa ranking than Gameworld.gr (Alexa is not 100% reliable but site is ranked at 52.000 position so this means that it has a lot of traffic). So how did you wrote an outcome that it's a "hobbist site"? - CyprusGamer is the only gaming site in Cyprus.And that's the only review that I found. - I've even forgot HDBlog.it , the biggest blog in Italy. Even if we exclude the last one, we have 5 reliable references from gaming/tech websites. In which Wikipedia policy does it say that the multiple references have to be "that number" and that "only websites and not blogs are allowed?" Ex. HDBlog.it is one of the biggest Gaming/Tech sites in the world. Finally, Iam not threatening anyone. Iam just telling you that I will escalate the issue to all major gaming websites, forums, youtubers and Reddit channels that I know. You are clearly killing indie game development here with the benefit goign to the big developers and publishers. Iam the one who must say that you are acting on behalf of them. Finally, this link doesn't mention anywhere that "5 or more references are required" or what is the "measure of counting a website's reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources If it says something like this, then copy-paste the rule to me. There is no such rule. We have 4 strong references and that's fairly enough. (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2) (GMT+2)).

Droid Gamers's about page has no editorial policy, no experience in journalism, and no external reputation for reliability—clear as day. No one said anything about a minimum number of refs. You could argue for two, but there's no way Droid Gamers and Cyprus Gamers are reliable. There's plainly not enough content to write a full article on this subject. You are clearly killing indie game development—I have written dozens of articles on indie games so spare me the personal attacks. In fact, I have nothing else to add here unless there are other sources. czar 19:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to promote indie gaming or any other cause or subject. We deal in what is notable. If the image is not yours, you will need to either obtain permission for it to be used or it will need to be deleted.(I see it is already tagged for deletion on Commons) Stating that others are 'acting on behalf' of 'big developers' requires evidence; if you have none, please retract your statement. As I indicated, canvassing for support for your position is generally frowned upon and is usually discounted in discussions like this. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: How can you say that this site has no experience in Journalism? Do you personally know all these editors? Do you know where did they work before DroidGamers? How can you say that they don't have reputation when they have 6.000 users. In lots of other gaming profiles I've been blogs with way less reputation. This site has a good number of users, forum posts and Alexa ranking. As far as I checked, it's dedicated to Android/Tablet gaming so compared to other ANdroid/iOS/Windows Phone sites it's way above average. "There's plainly not enough content to write a full article on this subject." - Ok, let's see some other mobile games. This is a full list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Android_(operating_system)_games You can find dozens of games there that shouldn't be listed. Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_vs._Art . Here in the references section, I see those sites listed. A) A redirect site : http://bears-vs-art.en.softonic.com/ B) Developer's official website (really?) : http://halfbrick.com/bears-vs-art/bears-vs-art-now-available-worldwide/ C) A redirect page so that users can play the game : http://playboard.me/android/apps/com.halfbrick.bearsvsart D) As you see, even press releases being copy-pasted! : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-11-halfbricks-upcoming-game-is-a-puzzler-called-bears-vs-art

So, both MCVUK and Gamasutra that redirected Landfort's press releases are valid references as well. Even SlideDB. This makes a total of more than 5-6 references, which makes this game profile notable.

@331dot: "It would follow that you have some connection with the subject". Since you first said that Iam connected with the game Iam also implying the same for you. Fair and simple. If you "retract your statement" -as you said it first- I will rectract it too. Crystal clean. You are not talking to a 10 year old kid so don't threaten me.(talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)).

@Kotsolis: This combative attitude you have isn't helping your case. It was reasonable to think that since you uploaded the game's image and said it was yours, that you were associated with the game. You say you are not, so there isn't an issue. On what do you base the claim that we are working for big developers, other than you disagreeing with what we are saying? 331dot (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to run Droid Gamers past other editors, try WT:VG/RS or WT:VG, but I think it'll be a waste of time. Alexa rating and user count doesn't make an outlet more or less reliable (Reddit rates high too and it doesn't mean it has journalistic integrity). As for Bears vs. Art, we call that "other stuff exists". Each article is discussed on its own merits one at a time. There is also a difference between sources used to determine whether a topic should be covered in its own article (notability) and what sources can be used as statements of fact in an article (e.g., the dev's own site, a press release). This is all explained in the basic notability policy. czar 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: General notability guideline: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. This means that all A, B and C points that I mentioned above don't make Bears vs Art notable. D is something between a press release and posting a video. As I see, you or someone else has Edited that game's profile and kept only GamesIndustry and Eurogamer links. So basically since the above game stays in Wikipedia with only 2 references, as I see LandFort has more than 2: 1)GameWorld : http://www.gameworld.gr/component/content/article/179-%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82/2014-05-19-05-44-56/22772-landfort 2)HDBlog.it : http://android.hdblog.it/2015/10/27/landfort-strategico-android/ 3)Techgear.gr : http://www.techgear.gr/landfort-android-102431/ 4)Android-Zone.fr : http://www.android-zone.fr/test-jeu-landfort-android/

Four are fairly enough. And again, there are no notability guides about the EXACT number of postings that should count as a notability, so don't waste your time on trying to prove me the notability rating of the product. Because I can post you hundreads of Android or iOS games that should be deleted because they had only 1-2 notable references. (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)). @331dot: Oh and about the logo, I have already asked for a .pdf usage of the game's logo from the developer. If they agree I just don't know where to put that .pdf in Wikipedia images.

And finally, I was never pinged about the Wikimedia image that I uploaded! So here is the developer's .pdf for allowing me to publish it : 4shared.com/office/hjFeX2xuce/uthorization.html @331dot: @Czar: (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)).

LandFort forum discussion added. A 5th reliable source of independent discussion between users. (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (GMT+2)).

A discussion forum is not a reliable source; and frankly you don't seem to be understanding what one is. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have understood what is a reliable source then why don't you recognize 4 reliable sources already mentioned? And why don't you send me the exact paragraph where wikipedia mentions that forum topic discussion is not a reliable source? (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2015 (GMT+2)).

I'm not going to repeat what the other user has said about the sources already provided. Please see this part of the Reliable Sources page where its states that user generated content is generally not considered a reliable source. Even if that does not satisfy you, you should understand that Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules about everything. Consensus is currently that such content is not a reliable source; you can certainly attempt to persuade the Wikipedia community that it is, but that seems unlikely to change. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the guides. Both you and the user that wrote before can't prove in any way, that those 4 sources are not valid. Actually all 4 of them are valid, and 4 sources are enough for a video game to be listed. There are no rules and limits about a "specific number of references". So I expect that admins will remove the Deletion tag. We' lost enough hours talking while we should all be working. I gave you an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_vs._Art which had only 2 reference links and you deleted the profile, without warning the author. I can post you hundreads of games that have 2 or 3 reference links. Are you going to delete them as well? Instead of posting links which I already read, either find one Wikipedia rule which says "More than 4 references" or Remove the "Delete" tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsolis (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is re-uploaded as I have official license to use it from developer George Mataragas - [email protected] ! Licence link - 4shared.com/office/hjFeX2xuce/uthorization.html (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2015 (GMT+2)).

Delete - per Czar's assertions. Not enough significant coverage in sources that Wikipedia/WP:VG/S considers to be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nothing on searches turned up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the cited sources, publishers Gamasutra and MCVUK would normally be the strongest, but in this case they simply reprinted press releases, which by definition are not independent of the company and product. Searches of the usual types turned up nothing better, so it does not meet WP:CORP or WP:NSOFT. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. Worldbruce (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG --The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Environmental Auditor Certifications[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for this article without references. Searches on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholars, Highbeam or JSTOR, produced some mentions, but not a single in-depth article. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I'm very serious and fond of the environment, there's simply no better improvement here with my searches only finding some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. Pinging tagger RadioFan. BTW thanks again for helping with randomly finding articles, Onel5969! SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Hernández[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This US Army soldier's death constitutes WP:ONEEVENT. A redirect to Pedro Miguel González Pinzón might be in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:11, 1 November 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, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically this shouldn't be closed as Speedy Keep because there's a Delete !vote present but Rathfielder did want to withdraw an hour after the delete !vote (Had she wanted to withdrawn a few hours after the delete !vote then it would of been a normal keep but seeing as it was an hour after the delete vote I'll be kind & close it as such :) ) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girl on Guy[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Promotional. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability criteria. No reliable sources. Pixarh (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a significant amount of material and references, so I think it meets WP:WEB now. I encourage Rathfelder to withdraw their nom if my fixes are sufficient. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great improvement. I'm quite happy now. But am I allowed to withdraw my own nomination?Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Per WP:WDAFD, not anymore. This nomination will have to run to term. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: As the article has been improved enough that it clearly meets notability, this can close early as speedy keepy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - meets notability as long-running podcast with established personality, has coverage, nominated for Webby award. Nominator has withdrawn support for delete . —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Taylor (boxer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. The WBU is nowhere close to a world-class organization. He has done nothing else. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - does not come close to passing WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WBU is a minor organization. Fails NBOX and GNG since the coverage is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe he's achieved notability as a boxer or has the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huỳnh Ngọc Sỹ[edit]

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

This Vietnamese government bureaucrat suspected of taking bribes fails WP:CRIMINAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I'm not fully set to vote yet considering the Vietnamese Wiki has more info and sources so this will likely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. searched the individual. clearly notabilty has been met. the article is short and can be expanded. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XEvil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (only passing mentions). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. Pinging Comrade Graham, Clyde Miller, Klingoncowboy4, MER-C, Al E., Chargh, Opabinia regalis and Mojo Hand. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zed Invaders[edit]

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

Unsourced, NN video game. 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. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging X201 and Wgolf. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bid management software[edit]

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

Is this even a legitimate topic? A random check of three of the PDFs used as references shows zero occurrences of the phrase "bid management". Looks like a WP:COATRACK for SEO cruft. Brianhe (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much better. Pinging users interested with this RHaworth, Czar, TenPoundHammer and Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, finding no use of the term in anything reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niekro brothers[edit]

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

There is an article on each Niekro brother. Not needed. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a disambiguation page, perhaps? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue this is already a disambiguiation page, by nature. KEEP, but adjust as needed. Thmazing (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are lots of sports siblings, e.g. Joe, Vince and Dom DiMaggio, Maurice and Henri Richard, Serena and Venus Williams, etc. Until you get up to about six, it's not worth an article, especially one this short. A disambiguation is a bad idea, since there is only one set of brothers; however, I did create a Niekro surname page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we can just redirect the page to Niekro. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. The Niekro brothers are specific people and not random Niekros. It makes sense to have them connected. It seems to me that the way to think of this page is, rather, a subdisambig. Since they are talked about so frequently together, I think that is justified. Thmazing (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's muddy the waters some more. There's Category:Sibling duos, including the Williams sisters (though they did play doubles together). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the reason I started this article is because I read about the Niekro brothers in two separate books and wasn't sure which Niekros were being discussed. I figured it out and made this itty article to help future folks in my position. That's its genesis. Thmazing (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And here: Knuckleball! Thmazing (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm wondering if it might not be better to rename Niekro -> Niekro family and merge and redirect there. There's nothing much more to say (except about them almost playing together on the same team[26]), unlike the other sibling duos. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have their own articles. A disambiguation page isn't needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all disambigs just lists of things that already have their own articles? Thmazing (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – and do not make it a redirect or disambiguation. Simply delete. Senator2029 “Talk” 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Lithuanian Archery Championships[edit]

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

Not sure if it meets notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep National championship of a sport is notable. Needs better verification. South Nashua (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability as national championship of Olympic sport. Search shows sufficient coverage of national archery championships in Lithuanian news. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more verification. WelshWonderWoman (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip H. Wiebe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMICS or WP:AUTHOR. This was nominated and kept a decade ago but the arguments for keeping the article -- namely that he is a dean of a department at a minor Canadian university and a published author -- would not pass muster today. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems he's been quoted on the topics hinted at in the very terse bio we have on him in multiple mainstream newspapers on at least two continents:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/27/b-c-scholar-studies-mystical-visions/
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/09/shroud-of-turin-exhibit-headed-to-calgary
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/faith/cloth-of-gold-the-glittering-return-of-the-turin-shroud-1925955.html
http://www.canada.com/life/Jesus+Joseph+Mary+junk+food/6300753/story.html

... and with multiple RS'es, the GNG is at least nominally met, although I'm not sure any of the referenced SNGs are. Do we have an SNG for parapsychology theology experts? (Note: I dropped the "H." in the Google News search, and these were all first page hits) Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as although Books, browser, Highbeam and Scholar found links, I'm not seeing convincingly better. Pinging past AfD commenter Maclean25 and DGG who seems interested with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 major books from Oxford University Press with the most widely held one in 698 libraries is very substantial for academic theology even of a somewhat popular nature , and enough to meet WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. But there are several additional books as well, which I/ve added. Additional reviews are needed to verify DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit less trustful of the library stats for OUP books than you are, I must say. OUP figures in the "blind buying" profile of many major US university libraries (and perhaps UK and Canada as well) which means that they routinely receive, through their jobbers, anything that comes out of OUP. I'm not saying that this person isn't notable, but I feel cautious about using WorldCat to do anything but indicate the extremes - the middle ground is pretty grey. To whit, there is a book of mine published by ALA publishing that I'm sure that no one in their right mind has read, but it is in almost 450 libraries per WC. Another book of mine, which really should have been discarded by now, is still in nearly 1200. I advise large lumps of salt. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a former pupil of Dr. Wiebe, I will not comment on what should happen, but I will point out that several eitors have improved he article's references since it was nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant scholar, merits better article than this. And User:Walter Görlitz, although, certainly, the best way to keep this article up is to add references, just as you say, you are not only entitled to support a scholar you studied under, you have actual knowledge of his work that especially qualifies you to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Dongguan[edit]

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

Doesn't have any sources listed that aren't from the organization, and I can't find any reliable independent sources that talk about it much. AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@AmaryllisGardener: Please keep in mind that the "Common outcome" is to keep any school which has senior high school level classes, even if no secondary sources are yet cited for the article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools (I am aware this is not an actual notability policy, but rather common outcomes). It is assumed that such sources do exist and can be found if one digs deep enough if the school is a senior high school or has senior high school level classes.

"Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."

Please read User:DGG's statements at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_International_School_Lagos for some background on why high schools/schools with high schools are usually kept.

Having said that I will see if any Dongguan newspapers have written anything about the school.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I forgot about that. But the exception really doesn't make much sense to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Dongguan Today article that talks about the approval of the school by the Chinese authorities. Anyway I think it's because high schools (or multilevel schools that include high school) tend to get more press coverage and articles written about them compared to elementary and junior high school articles. It's because high schools tend to be larger and draw students from a wider area. They are the final step before university, and in some countries they are the final stage of mandatory education (in others junior high is the final stage of mandatory education). WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. actual senior high school, sponsored by a notable agency. Such schools are always considered notable. I could give many reasons, but the essential reason is as a compromise--keep the high schools, remove the elementary schools, and do both without the need for discussion. WhisperToMe is correct hat they generally do get considerable more overage. In the days when we were doing this by the GNG, for US high schools I was almost always able to find RS coverage of two aspects: First, the athletics--any long standing school has won at least one championship in something at some point; Second, notable alumni--high schools are larger & the odds of finding notable alumni are greater, & people are more apt to mention someone's high school when writing about them. (Thus our custom of always including high school if possible in a bio, but not searching for elementary school unless it's readily at hand) DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. of course, per our normal procedure even if the article talks more about the seating capacity of its canteen than anything else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, guess I should brush up on my notability knowledge, having recently come back from inactivity. My apologies. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://intensivecarenetwork.com/cases-from-the-races-by-hinds/

[2] Rohrbacher, Rock (1997). Philmanac: A trekker's guide to the Philmont backcountry. CSS Pub. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0-7880-1469-2.

[1]

[2]