Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 November	7 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 redirect to Chris Kenner (magician). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Out of Control[edit]

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

No good indication of notability. YouTube videos aside, the only refs are two book reviews and an Amazon advert. Falls way below the standard of WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: If Kenner's Totally Out of Control isn't notable for an article on Wikipedia, than nothing magic-related is... All the sources (besides the Amazon one) are all notable, established magic sources who's only link just happens to be through YouTube videos. I know this because I'm a professional sleight of hand artist. I also think everyone should bare in mind that finding sources for magic, cardistry or sleight of hand is very different than finding historical sources, for instance. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a rundown of the sources:

Sources

Scribd. This is a merchant source, since Scribd is selling the book. Merchant sources are almost never usable as a source in any context since their primary goal is to sell the consumer something and using it on Wikipedia can be seen as an endorsement of the site or product. It's used in the article to back up the David Copperfield claim, but the problem here is that Copperfield would be a WP:PRIMARY source at best if we wanted to quote the book since he was approached to write the foreword. As such, he's not a neutral source to comment on the book. It's highly unlikely that he'd write something negative.
Vanishing Magic. This is another merchant source. It's used to back up the claims that the book has a cult following. Since they're trying to sell the consumer something (or were at some point in time), they're going to say things to make the book appealing. It might be a cult classic, but we can't rely on the merchant site to back up these claims.
YouTube. YT videos are sort of a grey area. You first need to be able to prove that the uploader owns the rights to the video, then you need to prove that this would be a reliable source. I haven't gone through the video entirely yet (offhand it looks to be a general discussion of the library, not of any specific book), but I will say that inclusion in a library does not automatically mean that a book is notable enough for an entry, at least not at this point in time. At this point it's used as an exclusionary tool in that we can say that if a book isn't in any libraries, it's unlikely to have any sources. If it is in a library, then that makes it likely that sources will exist but will be neither a guarantee nor notability giving in and of itself.
YouTube. Same issue here. Both of these videos seem to be used more to back up the claims for Kalush and aren't really being used to show how the book specifically is notable. I also get the impression that it's trying to say that the book is notable because this is where Sybil was first written about for the first time. This isn't necessarily something that would give notability since you would still have to show where this was notable by way of independent and reliable sources specifically discussing the book.
YouTube, Wired. Same issues, we need to be able to explicitly show that this is about the book.
YouTube, Kenner. Interviews are tricky. Sometimes they can be usable for notability, but you need to show that the people publishing the interview could be used as a reliable source. What makes it unlikely that Theory11 would be usable is because they are a merchant source. A look at their website shows that they sell cards. This doesn't really make them the greatest of sources, to be honest.
Amazon. Another merchant source. One thing to mention about this is that it's being used to back up claims that the book is rare and expensive. You can't use things like this to back that up because prices on merchant sites like that are entirely set by the seller and book prices are one of those things that rarely show notability for a work. An especially rare or pricey book can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's far from a guarantee.

Basically, none of these sources are particularly strong at first glance. Only a few of the YT sources are potentially usable and I'm only saying that because I haven't had the chance to really look at them yet. I have a strong suspicion that if the book is mentioned, it's mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all. If you're trying to assert notability for a specific act then that's the sort of thing that would best be covered in an article about the magician rather than the book. This is partially because it's usually easier to assert notability for a person rather than one of their works. What we need here are things like reviews of the work itself and citations in reliable sources. YT sources in general are usually greatly depreciated on here because anyone can upload a video (meaning that there are questions about editorial control, oversight, and other typical WP:RS concerns) and copyright issues tend to be a common problem. Unless the people/person uploading the videos are extremely well known and reliable, they're usually seen as trivial or unusable sources.

Now I'm aware that this is in a niche genre and as such, will be unlikely to really have a lot of coverage. However it's still necessary for an article. That's why it might be a better idea to create an article for the magician himself rather than keep an article for the book. I haven't made up my mind yet and I still have to really look at the sources, but so far the sourcing here is fairly weak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've found one source, but it'd be a good one to establish that Kenner himself is a notable figure rather than notability for the book. It discusses his Sibyl card move and does mention the book, but only briefly. It may not do much for the book, but it does show that he's influential. If I can find a few more for him in general, I'll try to make an article for Kenner and support a redirect there. So far though, this doesn't really do an awful lot to show that the book specifically is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post more sourcing on the talk page for this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, this is subject is somewhat niché and precisely because of that, I feel that these specific YT sources are perfectly acceptable. If you wish, I'll post the exact minute Totally Out of Control is mentioned in all of them. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new source, "Essential Magic Conference", not a merchant site. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added, also, a new source from "Bicycle Playing Cards". That's two new, reliable non-merchant sources. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added yet another reliable source, "Quality Magic Books". I think it's pretty clear the book is notable now... Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quality Magic Books looks to be a database at best and I can't really see anything about their editorial oversight when it comes to the reviews they post. That the About Us page links to a website where people can purchase things mentioned on QMB doesn't really help either. The conference link would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source at best, since bios of this nature are almost always written by the person or their representative and Kenner would be linked to the conference because he was involved with it to some degree. The Bicycle Cards doesn't really help either. I'd consider it a potentially usable RS when it comes to an article about the author, but it wouldn't be usable to show notability for the book itself, as it doesn't actually mention the book at all. It mentions the cut, but not the book. This might have been where it was first published, but that doesn't automatically mean that the book is notable. To be very honest, I think that your energy would be far better spent writing an article about Kenner himself rather than trying to rescue the article for the book. The basic info about the book can be covered in an article about Kenner and while I know that this isn't your ideal, this would still mean that the book's information would be on Wikipedia somewhere rather than an outright deletion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have created an article, so my suggestion is that this redirect to Chris Kenner (magician) with history. If sources ever do become available in the future they can be added and restoration sought, but right now I just don't see where the book is independently notable outside of Kenner. He is the creator of a notable card flourish, but books do not automatically become notable because it is the first place something is mentioned for the first time. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the suggestion by Tokyogirl79 to consolidate this in a biographical article makes sense. This article is always going to look promotional as currently written but within a wider context it might be fine. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that suggestion was made before my recent additions. I think we should her Tokyogirl79's new opinion. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete A book with only 30 magic tricks? Notable? You be kidding. I don't buy an argument that sleight of hand is a niche subject: it is simply not. - üser:Altenmann >t

You ... clearly... don't know what counts for "only" in the magic business. I've been introducing myself as a sleight of hand artist since 2009 whenever I perform, and not once have I ever experienced a person not saying, "a what artist?". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't confuse the knowledge of an average American and notability criteria in wikipedia. (I bet most of them dont remember who John Tyler is.) There are tons of books about magic business and magicians. Even I own two (besides collections of tricks for kidz). - üser:Altenmann >t 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stand-alone article, merge any useful information into Chris Kenner. BMK (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Chris Kenner (magician) and merge the info then if that's the only non-delete option. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough as stand-alone article, and then merge any relevant information which is not redundant into the article on Chris Kenner. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 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) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raines International[edit]

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

promotional and non notable. Makes claims to excellence based only on its own web page. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found was some links at News but simply nothing better. Notfying past taggers Northamerica1000, Morbidthoughts, SchreiberBike and DanielRigal. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The news coverage is thin stuff and not enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. I don't see anything else. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notablility. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic promotional puffery -- their "client base includes some of the world's best performing companies" -- with nothing meaningful in terms of sources about the company to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very highly promotional, but more importantly, does not meet the notability guidelines. Mentions on the search engines consist of trivial mentions and WP:ROUTINE announcements. Or press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 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) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard David Gasser[edit]

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

Biography with sources but none are in depth or about the subject. Some are about his company or sale of a minor league hockey team he co-owned. There is also a press release which I do not count as a WP:RS. Article fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better with its current state. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely zero results when using the article title, and nothing about this person if you remove the middle name, but if you use Rick Gasser, you do get some hits. But all of trivial mentions or press releases or routine announcement coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 13 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) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Hisham[edit]

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

Autobiography for non-notable businessman. Notability isn't automatically inherited from his company (with its own article) and the articles' sources contain no in-depth coverage about himself. Ref #2 and #3 (via Internet Archive) are supposedly about his early career, but don't mention his role in the project. The short speaker summaries in ref 14-16 are routine mentions. Google search found no other suitable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability for a businessman. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not return anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 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 Speedy delete (G7) (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing A Dream (Book)[edit]

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

Uncertain notability - advertisement for self-published book. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 - author blanked article —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 (which I think is what Wikimandia meant). Everymorning (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL yes, G7! —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjo Lee[edit]

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

Uncertain notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~. This article was nominated for deletion ten minutes after it was created. A quick search revealed nothing on the Web except the guy's own site, so it does seem that notability probably isn't there. But let's give the article creator a little more time here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been about a week since my first posting, and nothing has changed in the article. I've stricken my original position and am now advocating 'delete' for lack of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly much and simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in search engines to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 13 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 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantlessness[edit]

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

This is just a collection of trivial mentions of people not wearing pants on some occasion or other. The most notable claim, that it's "one of the fashion trends of 2010", is at the very least inflated--the article does list it, but only after five "real" trends are discussed, and then only in a long list: "Fringing, military details, leather, ruffles, sheer fabrics, animal prints, bows, clogs and lower heels, one-shoulder dresses, cycling shorts, jumpsuits, peplums, genie pants, fur shag coats, capes, pantsless-ness, plaids and checks, draping and knotting, lace tights, sweat pants, tattoos, bodysuits, body-con dresses, blazers and military jackets, vintage and chintz florals, miniskirts and mini-dresses". In other words, it's nothing. We really can't be writing up articles that collect trivia--and one wonders if this article really isn't just an excuse to put up pictures of girls without pants riding the subway (File:No Pants Subway Ride 2011 Seattle.jpg). Hits in Google Books are trivial, passing mentions; hits in JSTOR and EBSCO don't exist; Expanded Academic Index gives only one hit, where the word is jocularly used in a caption in Esquire. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a July 2014 WP:content fork of No Pants Day, an article whose history dates back to May 2005‎, by an administrator who should know better (permalink). Actually there was a history split in August 2014, I'm not sure what the deal with that was, but there really only needs to be one article on this topic. "Expanded scope of article" as if "pantlessness" was a normal condition, rather than a stunt celebrated on a single day each year for fun? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Talk:No Pants Day#History split request. An RfD discussion ensued from the bold and disruptive page move to this title. A neologism? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems that the edit history is entwined with that of No Pants Day and so we should be keeping it for attribution. No Pants Day seems to be a definite thing in the US but there's more to say about the global concept which is big in Japan, for example. See also sans-culottes for the French revolutionary take on this. And I, myself, created the article Donald Where's Your Troosers? which celebrates a True Scotsman... Andrew D. (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I hope the devil pays you well for having you on retainer--you must be playing devil's advocate, which is always appreciated. But sans-culottes isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of significance (this concerns a bunch of jokers in their underwear comfortably riding the subway), and the Donald article has decent sourcing, including a real book from a real publisher. (You must admit the sourcing in this article is lousy, and there was even worse stuff in earlier versions.) I would not oppose a merge, I reckon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that the sans-culottes were not pantsless, but instead wore pantalons -- what we would now call ordinary pants. -- The Anome (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I would not call them ordinary pants; I'd call them trousers – I'm British, you see. Given the linguistic complexities, it is sensible to have a clearing house article, like a dab page to help readers find the appropriate type of fashion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that the sans-culottes were neither pantsless (American) or trouserless (British). They were wearing pantalons. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The word pants is short for pantaloons; they are all much the same. Our article on the subject says that the French means "without pants" and so the title in question is a reasonable search term for this and other topics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I can't quite believe we're having this discussion here, but see culottes for the difference. Note that all the sans-culottes in all the contemporary pictures are wearing trousers. It just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I've amended the sans-culottes article appropriately. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO. The actual term "pantlessness" (coined as a fashion term) hasn't been discussed enough - so most of this is WP:SYNTH with random things about people wearing no pants. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real word here is pantless and the OED has that going back to 1858. But that's an adjective and so, per WP:NOUN, the less common noun form has been used as the title. So, in searching for sources, you should use variations such as "going pantless". It is then easy to find examples such as Vogue's "The pantless trend made a comeback this summer" or "Going pant-less has replaced the romper as summer’s most-tricky-to-pull-off look". This angle is not related to No Pants Day and so the need for a more general article is proven. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: "Pantslessness" is still a neologism as it's not an accepted word. Not everything is better converted to a noun title if that noun is essentially made up, even if using the common format -ness suffix for -less words (ie awarelessness, hammerlessness, motivationalessness etc.). If you want an article on pantless you would have a better shot. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or distinctive nor a common expression. And, for god's sake, delete the hundreds of redirects that point to this article. Can that be done at the same time? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Boom. Most of it came from a pretty bloated template. The rest is gone. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were just a few more links from articles left: I've deleted them too. -- The Anome (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiotic synthesized article. Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a combination of WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trout the admin who created this article --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they are in the process of receiving rather more than a WP:TROUT at the moment: see WP:AN/I. -- The Anome (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft with no meaningful content. WP:SYNTH is also an issue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An admin should know better than to create this bullshit. Non-notable. No meaningful, encyclopaedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pantlessness, pointlessness. Unencyclopedic, not meaningfully cited sub-topic of nudism, also likely a WP:COATRACK for something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dab to "no pants day" "Sans Culottes" and "Donald where's yer troosers" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Being British I thought this had something to do with Going commando, but it appears this was just a random phrase somebody made up one day and attempted to throw sources at the term to make it stick. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, a huge hot mess, this article proves that one man's trivia is another's synthesis. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. sst✈^discuss 08:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, why does this trivial solipsistic article have a WP:FURTHERREADING section with 14 (yes 14) items, as if it is an FA biography of Einstein? Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of them despite the inevitable deletion coming. AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to No Pants Day, which seems to be the primary topic. The sources don't really establish that this is a thing. Going through Google News, I'm still unconvinced that this is a thing, but there are enough trivial mentions that someone could probably make the argument that it's worth a redirect somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into No Pants Day per Wbm1058. sst✈^discuss 02:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonina Lebedeva[edit]

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

Minor medal. No major accomplishments. The same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per obvious Wikipedia bias against women. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seriously? female fighter pilots in WWII were rare. The reason for the "same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots" is because they are all celebrated as heroes. She shot down three planes and fought during the Battle of Stalingrad. Nom apparently ignorant of the huge gigantic significance of the Battle of Stalingrad that still exists today. She had additional focus as her remains and wreckage were not discovered until 1982.[1] She was given a burial with an obelisk. She has a street named after her in the city near where she was found. There was a book published about her in 1985 and she's featured in a book about female fighter pilots. Shameful nomination. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about her in Russian is solidly referenced, so what is good for them is good for others, even americans, I should say. And my opinion has some weight, as personally I should regard those fighters pilots, female or other, as enemies who tried to kill my grandparents, well, not her personally, but colleagues. (Bombing of Tallinn 9 March 1944; there was rumor that to celebrate Women's Day this bombing was done by female pilots; nice thought but historically untrue.) But as good historian I respect my enemies and give them all credit of being war heroes/heroines. - Same goes about another deleted article about Claudia smth... Claudia Nechayeva. Клавдия Андреевна Нечаева, russian article about her is in good order, or looks like, and their colleagues. I'd rather prefer them to have separate articles, even short ones, not to merge into one like 'female soviet pilots' or even their Regiment 586 (полк № 586) - what, actually, might have separate article. Russian wikipedia does not, unfortunately, maybe because they all have separate articles. BirgittaMTh (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting article. Sufficient coverage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted, the Russian article makes it pretty clear she's notable (as do sources when searching for her name in English/Russian). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes #5 of WP:MILPEOPLE. According to this, Order of the Patriotic War award is only given to those who have done some important heroic deeds during the German-Soviet War. Since she had received that award, it's clear that the subject played an important role in a significant military event. Now, a full article in Russian language, another full article, significantly about the subject, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and many more, will certainly make the subject pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO with ease. Ping DGG to reconsider. Jim Carter 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to be a major gaff or oops moment on AfD because it clearly doesn't belong here. Sometimes I believe editors nominate stubs because it's easier then writing. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly be improved with the addition of material from its Russian language counterpart, but per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, that is not a reason to delete. Passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty obviously meets WP:GNG, and per Hawkeye7, the Russian Wiki article can be used to improve it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:00, 12 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. Consensus seems to be to keep the season page and merge the individual team pages to the season page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket All-Stars Series 2015[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

At the moment we don't know that there is going to be more than just this one "Cricket All-Stars Series", so all the information contained in this article, along with Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors can be supplied at Cricket All-Stars, with the possibility of a split later on, when there is enough subject matter to warrant multiple articles. Harrias ^talk 18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and then redirect all these terms to Cricket All-Stars. None of these pages give any info that isn't relevant to general Cricket All-Stars page, no evidence there will be another tournament other than the 2015 one. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors – these will never be notable as sports teams or clubs as they are basically confected for the purposes of this series. I'm on the fence at the moment about the 2015 series page – I suspect it will probably end up with inadequate coverage to justify the article, but we won't know that until after the event. Aspirex (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 2015 page with the main one, Delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors and if necessary redirect after that. This is unnecessary propagation of non-notable teams. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note There's another related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cricket All-Stars cricketers which covers the two team articles as one, created after these two were nominated here. —SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 2015 series page. The official website of the tournament is titled "Cricket All Stars 2015". Cricinfo calls the tournament as "Cricket All-Stars Series, 2015/16". Tendulkar has said there will be more such series across the world in the coming years. When all those leagues (IPL, BBL, CPL) started, I'm sure there was a separate article for the inaugural season along with a main article about the league. So why can't this have one too? 117.192.160.213 (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom is probably the best solution, but certainly delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors per Aspirex. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cricket All-Stars. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep season page, because this is a recurring event, but merge teams. Coderzombie (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the tournament is a world-wide tournament, do not delete it. But as everyone said Merge it. The deletion of this article is not good at all. Also as in 2014 cricket season which added Bicentenary Celebration match, it is good to add this one to the International cricket in 2015-16 page within other tournaments section. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Side comment: "international cricket" has a specific definition, and neither this series nor the Bicentenary Celebration match technically fits it. Aspirex (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the season page. I completely agree with 117.192.160.213 that the current series has been officially named Cricket All-Stars Series 2015(according to Cricinfo and the official website). But, since the teams haven't yet gained enough popularity to be notable in Wikipedia, the teams should be merged with the tournament and season page. We should wait and if necessary, we may create the pages again. But, deletion is not an option.TheProudEditor (Chat) 08:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the 2015 page with the main one, and Delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors, per SpacemanSpiff. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the season page, and Merge Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors into the main page. I completely agree with what TheProudEditor suggested. SWASTIK 25 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Teams are not notable as stand alone articles and don't play official Twenty20 cricket. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ProudEditor. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cricket All-Stars. Cricket All-Stars is undoubtedly a very big event, but it is still not sure whether more seasons will be held or not. Bharatiya29 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the teams into the Cricket All Stars but Keep the season page. Matt294069 is coming 01:35, 16 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. Sandstein 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Vancouver UFO sighting[edit]

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

WP:NFRINGE asks us to consider slow news day stories as not notable enough for standalone articles. I submit that this is a slow newsday story. No lasting impression, no impact beyond any other one-off UFO sighting and not worth having a Wikipedia article for. jps (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel that the notability of this event doesn't warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia. No historical importance, no widespread coverage. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among UFO sightings that made it into the media, this one was fairly insignificant and had no longer lasting impact. Although it is a well written article, I am afraid that we can afford to lose it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one-off hoax of no lasting impact [2]. May be suitable as a brief entry at List of UFO sightings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of reported UFO sightings, where it is already listed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 12 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 by User:TomStar81 as G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Babitaarora) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yeh Hai Aashiqui episodes[edit]

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

Just an elaborate way of writing the plot of the TV show and using a whole dedicated page for it. WP:FANCRUFT and nothing encylopedic at all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:14, 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhoodle[edit]

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

Unremarkable colloquialism whose inclusion would contravene WP:NOTDIC. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see Wiktionary. Not a lot of sources for this either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming this word exists and is used, this page is not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 10 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 article has been improved since being nominated. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hendua chutchuta[edit]

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

No notability at all Conan The Barbarian (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as non-notable. No sources found for this particular "cuisine of Western Orissa.". At best, this might be merged into the article section on the cuisine of Orissa, which by the way makes no mention of this cuisine. However, it would still be unsourced. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:34, 23 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 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no coverage at all for the cuisine, fails WP:GNG. Maybe sources in Oriya language could be found. Not notable until extensive coverage found. Jim Carter 07:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The considerable efforts Psubhashish has made to save this article is really appreciative. I'm not sure if it still passes GNG or not, but keeping WP:INDAFD in mind I will change to Keep. Ping Glane23 and Conan The Barbarian to reconsider. Jim Carter 11:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete Have added a section and three citations. Will add more over time. It is notable but doesn't have much info online. But I am adding as much as I could to keep it live. :) --Psubhashish (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra relist for responses to the citations added by Psubhhashish joe decker ^talk 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my prior !vote from Delete to Keep in light of the sources found and added by Psubhashish. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP In present form more than adequate references that show notability. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 12:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP References are enough to keep the article.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 19:24, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Ann Matz[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and other concerns for quite some time, the article subject has requested deletion. After a preliminary search I have not found sources which would demonstrate notability under WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC, although I am mindful of one claim made in the previous AfD. --joe decker ^talk 16:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I was working on the article about her mother (Mary Jane Phillips-Matz) in 2013, I stumbled on this article in quite a disastrous state (basically, a pasted-in CV). The following is what I wrote on Talk:Clare Ann Matz in 2013 and it still applies now...

"I have extensively edited this article for encyclopedic style and tone, and added as many references as I could find. However, not only are many of the claims unsupported, there is nothing here that indicates the subject meets our notability guidelines. The references which are in the article merely confirm with name listing certain minor TV presenting jobs, the authorship of a few articles in not particularly notable publications, performance announcements, etc. I can find no reviews of any of her work and no evidence that anyone has actually written about her. The claim to having exhibited at the Venice Biennale is not quite what it seems, and was definitely misunderstood at the AfD for this article. She was simply a performance artist, one of a very large group, who presented a performance as part of the Biennale program. I'm afraid if no further references can be found showing substantial and significant coverage of this subject, it will be brought to AfD again."

Given that and the subject's request, deletion is appropriate in this case. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing for an obviously better article. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 4 trivial mentions in News; zip in Newspapers, Highbeam and Scholar; a few mentions in Books, but again, all trivial. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Papua New Guinea Quest[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 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 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 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 per WP:SNOW. Note my comments at the bottom for explanation as to why this was moved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Buyer's Club Jared Leto[edit]

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

Not that I am sure what this is about, but it does not seem worth a standalone article; its very skimpily referenced. TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another class essay that should be a criteria for Speedy Deletion but people can't get it together. Editor User:J chotto states he is student editor and is in women's studies class this fall. - —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnecessary when Dallas Buyers Club has its own article. Fancruft at best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Already an article on Jared Leto and DBC. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get a snow delete here? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there might be room in Dallas Buyer's Club to include some brief discussion of the controversy about Leto's role, this is not, per WP:SOAPBOX, a topic that gets a standalone article about it as a thing in its own right separate from the film itself. I fully understand and even agree with the desire to speedy it, but I'm not sure I see a speedy criterion it can actually be done on — although we could conceivably stretch G11 (advertising/promotion) slightly to accomodate promotion of a viewpoint rather than a commercial product or entity, I'm not quite comfortable enough to do that myself (though I wouldn't object if somebody else wanted to pull that trigger.) Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to go ahead and close this, but since this is a class assignment I'm going to move this back to their sandbox so that they can look to see if any of this could be merged into the article for the film. I'm also aware that some teachers require some sort of proof that the student performed the work, so this is also a factor. I will note, however, that Leto's role is already mentioned at Dallas_Buyers_Club#Reception, but this could be expanded somewhat to encompass some things that aren't in the article or aren't fully explored. This should not be taken as an endorsement for the article to be recreated or the content to be added as is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 13 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Welter Coaching Style[edit]

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

If this charter is notable the article needs rewriting and moving; otherwise it seems to be an entirely unsuitable subject for an article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - If there is any information about her it should go into her BLP (Jennifer Welter). No need to have this one going on separately. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there is any substantive content not already included in the bio article about Jennifer Welter, it may be included there with proper attribution, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also, fails WP:GNG. There is no showing that she has a unique or notable "coaching style". There are no reliable sources presented which discuss her "coaching style" in any depth. Cbl62 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Her coaching style does not differ from many" so why have an article? Clearly Jennifer Welter is notable, but her coaching style (as of now) is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and the above editors. No reason for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 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 Speedy delete. (WP:G7) (non admin closure) --rayukk | talk 08:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fafner in the Azure terminology[edit]

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

Not notable in my opinion. (We don't even have articles like this for hit TV shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. -rayukk | talk 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC) rayukk | talk 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original creator has requested deletion per WP:G7. [3] --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above concerns, author's WP:G7 request. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Even without the author's request, this would be a delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:57, 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 speedy delete. promotional, non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beckism[edit]

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

Non-notable religion. Adam9007 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of meaningful references speaks for itself. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11, WP:A11 and perhaps even WP:G3. I'd tagged the page for CSD earlier but it was declined by Adam9007 as they believed there was a claim of significance. However, per WP:Significance, "'credible claim of significance' is a two-part test: Credible and significant." I assert that the claim is not credible. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:43, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Mandrax[edit]

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

Well, there are claims of notability but the main claim is membership of a band on which there is not an article. Other than this, there isd little that I can see here to confer inderpendant notability. References are shonky to put it very kindly. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Thelongtone. I know they were the most active psychobilly band in Stockholm during their existence but Im still looking for better references, Ill probably send a message to the band asking for any solid press coverage they or she might've received. And Ill continue to work on improving the article over the next few days. Thanks, Streetdope (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find a single solid reference. No coverage available, and no criteria in WP:MUSIC met, therefore non-notable. The very notion you need to request the band send press coverage should be enough indication this doesn't pass general notability. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current citations are all about the band, not her, and they don't even show the notability of the band. Searches turned up nothing better. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 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 speedy delete. shameless spam anyway, no notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Deilmann[edit]

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

Another young German entrepreneur with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:28, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Movies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - two mentions of the channel being launched does not add up "significant coverage" by reliable sources as required. Brianhe (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it's not an over-the-air or cable channel, but a channel that is part of one of those '1,000's of online 'channels' for one low fee' providers that are of questionable legality. Can't really source this as having much reach outside of questionable means. Nate • (chatter) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article contains the website of the channel. So now the article contains 3 sources. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company's website as a WP:PRIMARY source certainly doesn't count at all. Nate • (chatter) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination Jimmy Aneja (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Researching this is complicated by the fact that "Hindi movies" and even "Hindi movies channel" are used in a generic sense far more often than in reference to this particular service. Nevertheless, I tried, and all I could find were copies of the press release anouncing its launch and sources merely noting its availability. Yamgo TV may be notable, but that does not extend to each the channels it offers. (Also, the article is full of misinformation: this is not a cable, satelite, or IPTV channel; it is delivered over the public internet.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Ningauble said, researching this was a bear, due to the commonality of the name. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China International New Media Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Was going to prod, since there are no reliable sources, but I found a few trivial mentions on News. Other than that, nothing on any of the other search engines. Appears to be a non-notable government run festival. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Not at all too surprising that this foreign film festival located in Shenzhen, China does not have too much English-language coverage, but it does appear to have mention in numerous Chinese-language sources. I will await input from editors able to read and translate them before opining. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at available English language coverage and the far wider Chinese language coverage, I am satisfied that notability is established and the festival meets WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient coverage of such an annual festival.--Antigng (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 13 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. Article could do with some expansion but anywho consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey World Travel[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable because although I found this (which included its company history here), here, here, here and here but none of these suggest obvious convincingly better improvement. Pinging editors Dmol, Grahamec and Apparition11 and also Australian users Shaidar cuebiyar and Coolabahapple. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Harvey World Travel is/was a well known travel franchise in Australia, most major towns and cities had/have at least one agency. Enough of the background, this is what i have found online (most of which are mentions and may be deemed trivial?): [4] - Helloworld says rebranded Jetset group from The Australian of 22 July 2013 - "JTG chief executive Rob Gurney said the success of the new brand would largely depend on the take-up by the group's existing 1700 bricks and mortar agencies branded either Jetset, Harvey World Travel, Travelscene American Express or Travelworld.", [5] - Harvey World Travel says hello to new venture from The Border Mail of 28 December 2013 - "HARVEY World Travel in Albury and Wangaratta will be jetting into a new brand over the holiday period. Helloworld is a super brand created by merging Harvey World Travel, Travelscene, Jetset and Travelworld.", [6] - Jetset Travelworld will launch a new retail network called helloworld in a move that is likely to spell the end of its existing brands. from Travel Weekly (Australia) of 22 July 2013 - "Harvey World Travel, Travelscene, Jetset and Travelworld will be replaced with helloworld, with JTG expecting the first stores to adopt the new brand in the final three months of the year.", [7] - Family firm alters travel brand from The Newcastle Herald of 12 January 2014 - "THE well-known chain of Harvey World travel agencies run by Newcastle’s Pearson family has come under the wing of getaway juggernaut Flight Centre.". ps. "Aussie editor?", just because there are big bunnies bouncing around in the hills where I live... Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @SwisterTwister: Please consider the sources I posted above, and how they demonstrate the company's notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose those are some good sources but I'll keep this open in case anyone else wants to comment. I may also be willing to add the sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although this was recently relisted so comments may come later, I wonder if Flat Out can give any Australian insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SwisterTwister, Harvey World Travel is a well known brand, in no small part due to their extensive radio advertising. I see three good quality sources, one from Sydney Morning Herald and two from the Australian Financial Review. Flat Out (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is notable but needs significant improvements/expansion to clarify its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 10 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 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanlon Wu[edit]

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

No indication of notability. This is either a personal advertisement or for the law firm. The two references are primary (linkedIN page and a self entry). The article itself is an over the top haiography by a paid editor. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Someone will likely need to WP:TNT this article to get rid of the promotional material, but it looks like Mr. Wu has received coverage in reliable sources. He is featured in this book about Bruce Lee, this Washington Post article discusses his work, he is mentioned in this report filed in the D.C. Circuit (see p. iii), he is quoted in this Forbes article, and he is mentioned and quoted in this article by the Baltimore Sun. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 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 11:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just don't think he meets GNG at this time. The Bruce Lee book segment is based on an essay he wrote for the NY Times in 1990 about growing up searching for Asian heroes. While a great article, it doesn't really count as independent coverage of Wu himself. And we don't have in-depth coverage elsewhere. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 13 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 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sasson[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:06, 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 11:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The subject's only claim to notability appears to be a minor role in a relatively unremarkable film. I've been unable to find any independent coverage of the subject. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure puff piece on someone who doesn't meet notability criteria. Searches did not turn up anything. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Masjid Shamsi[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See here [19], [20].

Use the search term "Great Mosque of Badaun"

See: FB Flood "Persianate Trends in Sultanate Architecture: The Great Mosque of Bada'un" in The Iconography of Islamic Art: Studies in Honour of Robert Hillenbrand ed. by B O'Kane (Edinburgh, 2005) pp 159-95

--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:25, 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 11:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "Shamsi-mosque at Budaun was erected by the son of Altamash in 1230." (https://books.google.com/books?hl=sv&id=6LcUAQAAMAAJ), "'Idgah and Jami masjid of Badaun built by Iltutmish are our earliest sources. Idgah is quite spacious consisting of abrickwall of three hundred feet in length. Jami masjid ranks among the largest mosques of India." (https://books.google.com/books?id=GHVuAAAAMAAJ p. 24) --Soman (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and move to the English name "Great Mosque, Budaun"/"Great Mosque of Budaun" ~~or "Jama Masjid, Budaun" (similar to Jama Masjid, Delhi)~~. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 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 per WP:G12 -- copyright violation — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Beck[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:15, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Victorino, Bogotá, Colombia[edit]

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

Badly named, incorrectly described and categorized, duplicate stub of San Victorino. ELEKHH^T 09:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It could have just been boldly redirected to the other article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 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 10:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Martinogk (talk) 03:25, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo Bliss[edit]

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

I came across this article as an A7, but the article asserts that the band has performed with notable persons/groups. That's enough to give a weak assertion of notability, enough to where A7 doesn't entirely fit. A search, however, doesn't show where this band would pass notability guidelines as a whole. I found some routine mentions of local performances, but not really anything about the group itself. Other than that, the only thing that they really received coverage for is a rock concert they launched the same year they created the band.

If anyone can find coverage then I'm willing to withdraw, but I just can't seem to really find good evidence of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I found was the news article on the charity concert already cited in the article. The article states that the band 'shared the stage' with some notable bands. 'Shared the stage' is a phrase that should be banned from Wikipedia as it generally just means someone played a support slot at a concert featuring someone more notable. --Michig (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 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 Keep as the current article is more acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Thomas[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable journalist article as the best I found was this, this, this and this and therefore I simply see no convincingly better improvement (at best the article could somehow be mustered to a borderline better article but it's still questionable). This article has also stayed the same since started by the subject herself since September 2008. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When adding "fashion", to search parameters, was easily able to find hundreds of great results in secondary source coverage, at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 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 10:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:AUTHOR point #3. The subject has played a major role in creating a well-known work, authoring the book Gods and Kings: The Rise and Fall of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano. Furthermore, the book has received many reviews in reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "‘Gods and Kings,’ by Dana Thomas". The New York Times.
^ Alexander Fury (2 February 2015). "Gods and Kings by Dana Thomas, book review: Exposing the seams,". The Independent.
^ "'Gods and Kings' book tells stories of high-stakes fashion". newsobserver.
^ "Gods and Kings by Dana Thomas and Alexander McQueen by Andrew Wilson review – brutally unsympathetic lives". the Guardian.
^ 'Gods and Kings: The Rise and Fall of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano', by Dana Thomas - Review. The Spectator.

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Do you feel that the sources provided above establish notability for the subject? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Olawoyin[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. He's just doing his job. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior prof with 6 papers and h-index 2. Article sourced only with personal web page and other web ephemera, suggesting SPA that created article is not familiar with WP requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Agricola44. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above editors. Doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, and clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Thurtell[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. SuperJew (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. In the squad but hasn't yet played a game. Looks like he will soon though. Suggest WP:USERFY to User:StridentCorn90 (page creator) so that it can be recreated if and when Thurtell plays his first A-League match.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has Covic and Tyson ahead of him in the "pecking order". I don't think it's that soon he'll be playing. A few years I'd say. --SuperJew (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:22, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Kemp[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 so unless there are some other better sources, I'm not seeing much here to keep and improve this article from January 2007. Pinging Joe Decker, Diannaa, Cyclopia, Izno, Lhynard, Anastrophe and Dwarf Kirlston. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly notable, but not un-notable either. The article had a lot more flesh way back when, the problem was it was largely unsourced. For me it's in the Don't Care column. Anastrophe (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNews gets us [21] and [22]. The first might questionably be said to be about Kemp, but it reads more like it's about the company for which he is CEO. The second is only a brief mention that he's a venture capitalist.
In GBooks, he's jointly published Management Frameworks: Aligning Strategic Thinking and Execution with 2 others, and he has a number of mentions in other books, some in enough detail to pass the WP:GNG I think. I could go either way, but I'm leaning to keep. --Izno (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a CEO of an important company. He is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 23 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! 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two sources in the article which have the person as main subject, so it meets WP:GNG. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bloomberg writeup (listed in the article as Business Week)is routine information they include for every executive. Much of it is based on information the person themselves furnishes. We have never in recent years treated them as RSs for notability , though like similar cvs, they are usable for uncontested routine biographical facts. He is not head of a major company; he i head of a geographic division of a major company, though it is possible that the copany is important enough that the heads of such divisions might be notable, but ti cannot be assumed. The article contains unsourced adjective of praise eg "famous. The Harvard Business Review item is a book review ofa book he is one of three coauthors--it can contribute to notability but by itself it does not prove it. The books itself is not notable or particularly important, WorldCat shows it in 88 libraries only [23]. Important books in this field are in many hundred. The book is not in the library of any major business school in the Northeast US--not Columbia, NYU,Harvard, Yale,Dartmouth, Cornell, nor in UChicgo, U Calif. U Washington, etc. , nor in NYPL, which buys very extensively nontechnical businessbooks also. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being the CEO of a company does not give one automatic notability. Business profiles in trade magazines also shouldn't be used for notability. Searches turned up brief mentions of him, but nothing in-depth enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 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 keep. For now. Can be renominated if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Filgate[edit]

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

Questionably improvable article as the best I instantly found was this, this, this and this and this hasn't changed since starting in December 2008. Pinging Chowbok, Felix Folio Secundus and Coolabahapple (BTW, what's the origin of this username, Coolabahapple). SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, or at least the rip squeak books do, as i have found these: [24] - Publishers Weekly - "suffers from a surfeit of cuteness" and "If the text borders on the trite ... the artwork fares marginally better.", [25] - Through The Looking Glass Children’s Book Reviews (online journal, may not be useable for notability?) - "Beautifully illustrated with rich and colorful paintings, this book is a joy to read.", [26] - SDSU (San Diego State University) Children's Literature Reviews - "Not only is the storyline of Rip Squeak and His Friends engaging, but the illustrations by Leonard Filgate enliven Rip Squeak's world.", [27] - 2003 Independent Publisher Book Awards Results - Rip Squeak and His Friends Discover the Treasure - finalist in Children's Picture Book (7 & over) category, [28] - Midwest Book Review Children's Bookwatch of January 2010 - ""The Adventure, Rip Squeak and Friends" is beautifully illustrated with paintings of ship, crew, and monster/friend Salvadore. Children ages 6 and up will love this colorful ship story." ps. editors who wish to guess as to my name origin are welcome to leave messages on my talkpage Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 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 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users LaMona and Tokygirl79. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep As a children's book illustrator who has gallery representation [29], was included in at least one museum group show (at the Fresno Art Museum, [30]) here:[31], has been profiled in a legitimate albeit local newspaper [32], plus in SisterTwister's Highbeam search above at Nom, and has a long series of publication credits [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 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 keep. The article has been improved and there have been no comments other than the mom that support deletion. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wee Blue Book[edit]

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

WP:NBOOK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion, but another user removed the tag with the rationale: "Removed notice as numerous links establishing notability have been listed in the Talk page". There are six links given on the talk page. The first is a blog about Northern Ireland politics (Slugger O'Toole). The article in the Independent about Cybernats in general, rather than this book specifically. The third link (Common Space) is an interview of Stuart Campbell (the publisher of this book) about his activities during the Scottish referendum, while the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing). The fifth is a political site effectively advertising the book and the sixth is an opinion piece in a Canadian newspaper about the referendum in general. None of these sources go into in-depth coverage of the book. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion below is copied from the article talk page Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Those which are are very prominent and widely-read blogs, far outstripping the readership of many newspapers. The others ARE newspapers, in addition to those already cited in the entry. If being nominated as one of the Books Of The Year by the Herald - the oldest continually-published newspaper in the world - doesn't count as "notable", clearly nothing is going to satisfy you. AlanLertreader (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The point is that it does not satisfy WP:NBOOK, the notability guideline for books. Has it been subject to at least two non-trivial works in independent sources? No. Has it won a major literary award? No. Is it considered by independent sources to have made a significant contribution to a political movement? No. Is it taught in schools? No. Is the book's author especially notable? No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to your personal interpretation. Other people's differ. If you'd like a very long list of coverage of the *author* in the press to establish their notability, I can certainly help you. But you could start with his own entry on Wikipedia. And since that, of course, wouldn't be there at all if he wasn't acceptably notable, you'd be pretty scuppered already. AlanLertreader (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly not read WP:NBOOK. The point about an "especially notable author" is that in some cases, you may have a very famous writer who has a lesser known work that does not satisfy the other guidelines. With all due respect, Stuart Campbell does not qualify as "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable" (to quote the guideline fully). As the guideline goes on to say, the fact that Stuart Campbell is personally notable by Wikipedia's standards is not relevant. Instead, the point is that the book's author is of "exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" Again, Mr Campbell does not qualify on this basis. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. This bit seemed pertinent: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or POLITICAL or religious movement." (My caps.) Numerous "reliable sources" have been listed to that effect. A million copies distributed among an electorate of just 4m is plainly significant by itself, even before considering the content. Your unexplained animosity is blinding you. AlanLertreader (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request seems politically-motivated, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards the content, the publication was clearly a notable part of the referendum debate, partly evidenced by the fact it is still a talking point thirteen months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.245.202 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Presumably if the book is such a "talking point" or a "notable part of the referendum debate", you would be able to provide evidence of this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I can only agree this is a politically motivated request for deletion. The importance and influence of this one publication at the end of the referendum campaign is clear to anyone who was there. Oops, original research? Others have provided links. Those advocating deletion seem to be hanging their case on a disingenuous argument based on the fact that the bloody book was so much despised by the union-supporting media that they did their best to ignore it. Leave the article alone, it's not doing anyone any harm. The book isn't Animal Farm but it was easily significant enough for a Wikipedia entry. Morag Kerr (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the book was that important, surely the parts of the media that were sympathetic towards independence (say the Sunday Herald) would have covered it? Or international sources, without an axe to grind? If it were that important, surely the pro-union media would have covered it to at least the extent of saying "this book is wrong and this is why"? WP:MERCY applies to the "it's not doing anyone any harm" plea. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the arcane, often seemingly trivial content seen elsewhere on Wikipedia (with all due respect) an entry for such a self-funded, self-published, mass appeal phenomenon during such an historic democratic exercise seems perfectly justified. Motivations for wanting its removal can only be guessed at. 86.145.101.87 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Or international sources, without an axe to grind?" They did, as per the example already linked. (ABC.es) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please assume good faith in other users. As for your arguments: "trivial content seen elsewhere" - other stuff exists; the fact it was self-funded and published is irrelevant. The crux of the argument for keeping the article is that the book had a significant impact on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. You have not provided any evidence of this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Book Of The Year nomination in a national newspaper is clear evidence of that, which for some reason you're dismissing out of hand as having been "in passing", despite such nominations being the entire and sole point of the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that while Jmorrison230582 has leapt within minutes on every other comment on this page, he's still got no retort to the above point a day later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I already addressed that above ("the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing)"). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, because as I noted above, saying it's "in passing" is a ludicrous statement when the *only purpose* of the article is to nominate books for the award. You haven't offered any counter to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in The Herald ("Finally, Wings Over Scotland's Wee Blue Book is both iconic and of continuing value.") would only be relevant for one of two reasons per WP:NBOOK: if the book won a literary award (it didn't) or if the source talked about the book in some detail and depth (it didn't). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK stipulates, as has already been noted, that the required criteria include that "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant [...] event or political or religious movement." It further notes that only one of the criteria it lists is required for inclusion. Regardless of whether awards were won, regardless of the "depth" of coverage, that criterion seems to be more than amply satisfied by the numerous links posted.92.27.237.203 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book has been mentioned by numerous newspapers at home, as well as the Wall Street Journal and other international publications such as the Canadian HuffPo. It is also mentioned as being important in perhaps the only book (as of yet) to seriously examine the 2014 referendum: Prof. Mike Gardiner's Time and Action in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Admittedly, the sourcing on the article could be improved, and currently the WBB probably only just satisfies the criteria set out by WP:Book, but I think we should keep it, or, if this debate closes as delete, merge it with Mr Campbell's entry. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:40, 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 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see why this article was listed as an AfD, especially being written by a person who has been such a controversial figure. But there has been quite a bit of info added to the article itself, since it was nominated. The number of downloads of this book was huge (especially considering the penetration of the target audience, i.e. download figures per head of population) which occurred over just a one-month period between the book being published and the Scottish Independence referendum vote taking place. So, although it is a book relating to a very specific time period, it seems worthy of being kept. I reckon it passes WP:GNG or number 3 of WP:NBOOK where the event is the referendum itself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 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 Double Mooring Thana. No keep votes, and creating a redirect at least keeps the history, if at a later time it becomes clearer that this is an actual defined area. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Madar Bari[edit]

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

This is a neighborhood, as stated in the poorly attended first deletion discussion. West Madarbari and East Madarbari are city council wards in Chittagong. West Madarbari and part of East Madarbari are in Double Mooring Thana. The remainder of East Madarbari is in Kotwali Thana.

There are no shortage of Google hits for Madarbari (filter out the village in India with -Assam), but they are mere mentions (e.g. "fire service responded to an incident in East Madarbari"). I couldn't find non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources as called for by WP:GEOLAND.

Redirecting to the next most general level would be problematic because the neighborhood is spread over two thanas. It would have to redirect to Chittagong City Corporation or Chittagong. In any case, the article title, "Chittagong Madar Bari" is not a plausible redirect.

The only sourced fact in the article is that Mazharul Islam Chowdhury is councilor for Chittagong ward 30, East Madarbari. The unsourced remainder is useless. This is a case for WP:TNT. If someone wants to write two articles about the two legally recognized wards, fine, but this shambles of a neighborhood article is not a suitable starting point for that. Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case if it cannot be improved as the current version could certainly be better but of course that's not surprising with these Middle Eastern subjects. Thanks again Worldbruce for pinging as I'm always open to be pinged about any subject I encountered but I'm also curious what impulsed you to actually nominate it again (I often wish to relist them myself again and will if I have the enthusiasm and actually will have to go through my list as I never remove those from my watchlist). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I look through your recent contributions, it seems you were patrolling orphaned Bangladesh geography articles. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Double Mooring Thana as suggested at the first afd. Neighborhoods need either some formal definition, on consistent use in multiple sources, not just an informal occasional use. I do not see the necessary individual notability clearly enough here. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Double Mooring Thana as previous editor suggested. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 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! 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milisav Popović[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches found nothing better than this and this and this has existed from November 2008 with no much better change. Although no user is considerably active, the closest is tagger Sven Manguard. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable [34], [35], [36]; a lot of TV profiles on him: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikimandia - Can't read Russian but it all looks legit, Although I'm not entirely keen on citing Youtube it's better than nothing, Anyway meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gein (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, I was close to simply speedying as A7 considering there's not much and my searches found nothing better than this but as always I like AfDs especially when they carry weight in case this is restarted (G4). Next, the last AfD is completely outdated and unapplicable with Wikipedia certainly changing since 2006 so it would be helpful to have new comments. This article has existed since September 2005 with hardly ever improvement and their website suggests they are not better known with considerably better coverage. Pinging Ohnoitsjamie, Boleyn (and I notice, Boleyn, you PRODded it and removed it but never advanced with an AfD, was that intentional?) Scott MacDonald and Mbinebri. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what my edits were about from 2013, but I couldn't verify that this can meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - difficult to research due to the band taking their name from the murderer who was the inspiration the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But there is not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, nor do they qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 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 redirect to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nations (accessory)[edit]

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

Non-notable book (or game, I guess -- It's a D+D campaign supplement guide.) References aren't turning up, no out-of-universe material, certainly no academic study. Mikeblas (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is made to merge, the correct destination article is probably List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks. No opinion at this time whether that's the right choice; I suspect that some discussion of most of these releases can be found in the various gaming-industry magazines, not all of which are well-represented online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge [42] is a review by someone notable in the field. Counts a bit toward notability. Plenty of other reviews, but all appear to lack editorial oversight. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 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 07:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there being no reliably published third party content to merge, delete. (redirect is also possible, but with the parenthetical DAB it is such an unlikely search term that it seems completely unnecessary.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per consensus. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:46, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sander "Vo0" Kaasjager[edit]

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

It would seem to me that the assertions made in this article are not supported by reliable third-party sources.

It's 2015. If this asserted player of Esports started his playing professionally in 2006, it would seem reasonable that an e-trail in reliable gamer references would have followed his career.

At present there are six purported refeferences:

http://www.own3d.tv/watch/cpma-done-by-vo0,10524.html - "The requested URL /watch/cpma-done-by-vo0,10524.html was not found on this server."
http://thecpl.com/league/?s=news&p=newsitem_1015

- "Page Not Found (Error 404) - The file may have been removed or renamed. Be sure to check your spelling. If all else fails, you can go back to the page you came from, return to the homepage, or try searching (top right).

http://www.esworldcup.com/2004/?act=document_info&id_document=350

- "Firefox can't find the server at www.esworldcup.com."

http://www.qpad.se/modules/news/article.php?storyid=359

- [view-source:http://www.qpad.se/modules/news/article.php?storyid=359 viewing the source code] doesn't even bring up the standard 404 error.

[http://asiangames.sporttu.com/athletes/sander-kaasjager-2522292/preview# a mention that a person named Sander Kaasjager may have played NCAA Tennis

another mention of a person of the same name who may have played College tennis and may be the same person Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of sander kaasjager or Vo0 brings a up a multitude of reliable secondary sources not used in the article. For instance [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] He is also discussed at length in TL Taylor's Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming --Prisencolin (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref bombardment is not particularly helpful. Why are these sources reliable (not just blogs, if not already vetted at WP:VG/RS) and how much do they actually cover the subject? czar 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going through all of the sources (some of them probably aren't the best i'll admit) [55]: From MTV so it should reasonably establish notability. [56] Red Bull seems to be an organiation dedicated to journalistic excellence so it looks alright. Vo0 is not the primary focus but its still enough imho. [57][58][59][60] are from the VG/RS search engine and are primarily focused on the player. The article in its current state is pretty horribly sourced and should be fixed.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was covered in several stories in Algemeen Dagblad, the second largest newspaper in the Netherlands. Stories in NRC Handelsblad, another prominent Dutch news outlet: [61]

--Prisencolin (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looking through the sources given in the above ref bombardment, there seems to be more than enough to establish notability. MTV and Redbull are commonly used and I assume are reliable. The book and the BBC article also work well. The rest are of varying quality, but at least some of the Dutch sources (Tweakers in particular) are reliable. Oddly enough, the source from Gamersnet.nl and from Gamer.nl don't seem to be working correctly for me. However, I do suggest it to be moved to Vo0 per common name and article naming guidelines. ~Mable (chat) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: something went wrong when the link to this debate got posted on my Talk page. I didn't really understand what it meant and didn't know this debate was actually going. I pinged you, but you didn't respond either. I figured I'd let you know that something didn't go entirely right, which was annoying. ~Mable (chat) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 13 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 redirected to Rostro de México. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 10:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand México[edit]

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

Doesnt cite any sources FindMeLost (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Article relates to Miss_Grand_Internacional_2015 in the spanish wikipedia. This content has references for these contests, but a lot of it is self published. I found a few news stories in spanish. Someone just needs to move them over to the English wikipedia who reads spanish. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:29, 22 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) 05:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By which I mean, keep the target article to which the subject article is now a redirect. I also mean 'keep' the current redirect. The target article could use some clean-up and some more sourcing, but the most recent years do appear to be sourced. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 13 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Burning Book[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)~~. Keep Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to London Burning: Portraits from a Creative City~~ - which appears to be the actual name of the book. A search of that title turns up a large number of results, many in reliable sources, which suggests the topic is notable. Question is whether this mistitled, and inadequately described, page should be moved, or whether to just WP:BLOWITUP. I think it probably makes the most sense to move it right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - page has already been moved now, so changing vote. There's a lot of coverage of the book in reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - moved to correct title. Has a big feature in Vogue and usual coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional source searches below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 6 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Extreme Rallycross Championship season[edit]

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

Series folded after one round on 28/10/2015, no longer requires a full article. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for 2015–16 Extreme Rallycross Championship season[reply]

Comment Information about the series and the reason for its cancellation has been added to Rallycross#Rallycross in Australia. – Ky ta bu 10:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough content to warrant a separate article, and with the series cancelled there is unlikely to be enough reliable sources to fill the article out. Information about the series and its cancellation is better served on the article mentioned. QueenCake (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. – Ky ta bu 10:14, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Upheaval[edit]

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

Not much out there on the book. There is a nice review in Yes, but that's about it. The rest are merely trivial mentions on News, Scholar, and Highbeam. Books shows the book exists, as you might expect, but that's it. Newspapers had nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - after Tokyogirl79's work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it's a copyvio since portions are taken verbatim from this site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No... this was published after the WP article, but this still feels like it's copyvio from somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher website shows that various outlets have reviewed the book, although I will say that I'd prefer if we could verify these somehow before counting them towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've greatly cleaned the article up and added some reviews. It should pass guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where did you find those reviews, Tokyogirl79? I went back to the search engines and still didn't see them. I'll be withdrawing the nom after I hear back from you, but thought it might be nice to know how you found them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I made a sacrifice to Cthulu and gained l337 searching powers. (Not really.)~~ I found the publisher's page, which had reviews listed with the media outlet and the publication details, which made it easier to search for the specific reviews. Not all of these outlets came up in a Google search, but for the most part they showed up when I looked through their websites. To be honest, I was pretty surprised to find them as well. I'd been pretty certain that I wasn't going to find anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice work Tokyogirl79! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Pride[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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

No indication of the geographically disperse sourcing required to meet ORG John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a regional event and organization held in Tucson, Arizona. Referenced are article from Tucson and Phoenix. This page is about Arizona's first and oldest LGBT organization approaching its 40th anniversary (making it one of the oldest in the nation) This move by John is anti LGBT harassment in its most blatant form in that this page has been under attack from day one first by C.Fred and now by John from Idegon. If this page is to be deleted due to ORG then all other Pride pages such as San Diego, San Francisco, New York and Orlando need to be deleted as well. Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event does seem to meet the standards for inclusion, as there have been multiple reliable sources reporting on the event. Robert, I will advise you that calling people "homophobes" as you did for opposing an article and believing it is worthy of deletion is considered a personal attack. Please be sure you read up on WP:NPA, s this kind of behavior is highly frowned upon here. While you feel very passionate about this article, be sure to keep a level head, and do not immediately throw out accusations of harassment or homophobia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization/event does meet the standards for inclusion, as there are multiple reliable sources reporting on the event. My apologies for believing from his profile that John is homophobic (I have deleted the reference). I have created two pages on Wikipedia, both about LGBT organizations, both under threat of deletion. This article about an organization of historic significance is being threatened with deletion due to lack of relevance and yet a mall here in Tucson isn't. This makes zero sense. Thank you for your Keep vote.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others noting coverage and notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be happy to withdraw this nomination if someone, anyone, can show me a WP:RS source outside of Arizona that is discussing this organization. Talk is cheap. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that Tucson Pride doesn't seem to be a local chapter of a national organization so I don't believe WP:BRANCH actually applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NGO, under additional considerations, it states we should consider: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. As Tucson Pride is one of the oldest groups (almost 40 years old), that points to notability. They've manage to persist and organize successful events despite being in a largely anti-gay state. as noted here by The Advocate (a national publication). —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more WP:RS, but a Gnews search reveals no shortage of prominent coverage. Easily meets WP:ORG. This requirement that T.P. receive coverage outside the state is not policy. This is not a local chapter of a larger entity; not a state chapter of something else, if even there are other groups elsewhere in the country (and the world) that use "Pride" in their organization or event name. Keep.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, you should read the subsection of ORG linked at AUD. Corp/Org is an exclusionary guideline, requiring a higher standard than GNG, unlike all the NPEOPLE standards, which offer a lower level of notability than GNG. This is a necessary guideline, lest every local five and dime qualify for an article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're try to say but if you do a Google News search we do have enough coverage from reliable independent sources to meet any reasonable standard of GNG, including a photo essay from the national publication Advocate. As for this "local five and dime" thing, that's really just your personal sentiment. It's not policy and I remind you Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only to spite a certain someone. I'm not petty, I swear. clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW per Wikimandia. And Clpo13, no matter how much the little devil sitting on my shoulder wants to agree with you, you should probably give Gravedancing a read. John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Flats Film Festival[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film festival. A search for significant or reliable coverage came up empty. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete - only self published sources. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 31 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 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better and there's hardly much here as well. Considering this has been twice relisted, MichaelQSchmidt, [email protected], Onel5969 and Davey2010 may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being too new and having no coverage (yet). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it's too soon for an article yet. I was going to suggest a redirect to the festival's city, but that article doesn't mention it, and I can't even find a trivial mention in the local media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACoRP members[edit]

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

Disputed Prod. We have no article for the ACoRP or for most of the members, and we have List of British heritage and private railways for those lines not included in the national lines or with their own article. The railway lines are important, the CRPs not so much (in general). No notability for the list subject. Fram (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge relevant content into List of British heritage and private railways. I think this article is somewhat spartan, does not give a reader a clear picture. Not a notable subject. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The people proposing deletion do not seem to understand the subject. Community rail partnerships have nothing to do with Heritage and private railways. They are support groups for certain National Rail lines. Biscuittin (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not a reason to keep the article, of course. Fram (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not anything to do with heritage railways and anyway this article could do with a revamp and possibly even a rename to something like List of community rail partnerships in the United Kingdom. For example, the Borders Railway is a community railway line. Proposed lines also do not count. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which still doesn't address the lack of notability for this list of CRPs. Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned heritage railways (the list didn't do a very good job of explaining what it was about anyway), but that it is about standard rail lines and not heritage rail lines doesn't change the reason for deletion, which neither of the keeps have so far addressed. Fram (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Community rail partnerships are special types of railway lines with an organisation on each line representing the communities they serve. Why would this not be notable? It would be too big to fit into community rail (and besides it is incomplete). How about List of train operating companies or List of railway bridges and viaducts in the United Kingdom. Each describes an important aspect of the UK rail system. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is an important aspect, shouldn't we at least have an article on ACoRP, and on some more of these members? Now neither the organisation nor the members have any evidence of being notable subjects, and a list of mainly non-notable members of a non-notable group has no place here. Even a list of notable members of a non-notable group has no place; without evidence that the ACoRP is a notable association, there is no reason to have a list of their members. Fram (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, there is an article on it as it is part of the community rail one. For the organisation itself, see here. It is sponsored by train operating companies and the government. See here. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So what you actually mean is not "yes..." but "No, we only have a short paragraph on it, with one primary source". Your links do again nothing to establish any notability. Fram (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        [62], and I'm sure it's pretty easy to find other uindustry sources. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        More examples of relevant news articles here, here and here. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 18:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 29 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 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the listed ACoRP members have their own Wikipedia articles, but several others are sufficiently notable that they could have one. Martinogk (talk) 04:29, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Belotti[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable given the current version and the best my searches instantly found was this and this. Pinging DGG (although I know music is not his familiar area). SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 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 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classical music I can do; by the usual standards, ot yet notable-- recordings, but not major recordings, no substantial reviews of performances. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thebleedingalarm[edit]

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

Seemingly obvious case of no better notability and improvement with the best my searches finding this and this. Pinging Bearcat, Monni95 and Gapple. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NMUSIC Monni (talk) 11:40, 22 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 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brodie Press[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I found nothing better than this and this and this has actually not changed since starting in February 2006. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 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 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users LaMona, Davey2010, Onel5969, Tokyogirl79 and AusLondonder. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches reveal that unfortunately I cannot see this meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Can't find anything on Google nor Highbeam. Fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 03:59, 13 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. The article shows potential but the nomination page has lacked participation. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Borkowsky[edit]

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

I've actually encountered this article quite a few times and am still questionable of its better notability and improvemetn as the best I found was this, this and this and this has not improved since starting in January 2009. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of two books: Amy's Answering Machine: Messages from Mom and Statements: True Tales of Life, Love, and Credit Card Bills. Additionally, the secondary source coverage shown at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL would be enough, over time, to perform a Quality improvement project on this article and take it to WP:GA status. — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, before anyone else makes the steps, I'm willing to improve it if it can actually be. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 23 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 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CsUnit[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable article for software as the best I found was this, this and this and this hasn't improve since starting in March 2007. Pinging Stuartyeates and Jerryobject. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redircet or merge and redirect to Test automation, List of unit testing frameworks or similar. Feel free to ping me for any merging. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 22 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 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 30-odd .NET test frameworks listed in List of unit testing frameworks so I assumed this was yet another non-notable one. However it turns up in Google Scholar and is often mentioned along with NUnit as the only other .NET unit test framework in the paper. I've added two references to further reading. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:45, 11 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Engerbretson[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable because although I found several links here, here, here, here and here, I still question whether it's convincing improvement. Pinging Phil Bridge, Stifle and JGXenite. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 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 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego City: A Clutch Powers 4-D Adventure[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources for information. A mention in Clutch Powers should be sufficient for this film. LukeSurl^{t c} 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Clutch Powers: Bad Hair Day[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources for information. A mention in Clutch Powers should be sufficient for this film. LukeSurl^{t c} 10:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:23, 22 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 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft by tail number[edit]

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

What is the purpose of this list? It's not a list of all aircraft that have an individual article on Wikipedia, only those with a tail number. But it's hardly a logical characteristic to group articles by. Date, death toll (for the crash articles), manufacturer, ... all would make a lot more sense. The tail numbers are included in the individual articles and searching on them in the search box (or Google) works just fine, so this isn't needed for navigational purposes either (or does anyone want to access our articles in the order of this list? Seems unlikely, as it is a largely random order in most countries). At 118K, a lot of work must have gone into this list, but that's hardly a reason to keep it around. Fram (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tail numbers are quite logical as IDs for people interested in aircraft; that's why the numbers are marked on the aircraft, rather like the way that ships have names. The list seems useful for navigation and generic search functions would not be so good as the tail numbers can be quite ordinary numbers, such as 101, which don't make good search keywords. As for the amount of work, that is a reason to keep this around. All that deletion does is make the list viewable by admins only and how does that help anyone? If we felt there was a better structure for this sort of data then there are more sensible alternatives to deletion, such as making it a draft, which wouldn't be so disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cars have license plates, but no one would order cars by license plates (as an encyclopedic list). And no, the amount of work is never a reason to keep anything around (nor to delete it, of course). Making it a draft is only useful if you (someone) is planning to do anything with it to solve the problems: it can't stay as a draft interminably, and it makes no sense to turn it into a draft only to put it back as is later. Fram (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are numerous topics for which codes or numbers are an appropriate form of index - examples include stars known only by a catalogue number; Mozart's works, which are referenced by their Köchel number; complex chemicals such as enzymes and genes; &c. The list in question is a list of notable individual aircraft, rather than a type of named aircraft design, and the registration number seems to be the best way of identifying these particular notable specimens. If there's a better way of doing this then let's hear it. As for cars, there may well be examples for which the licence plate is a good index. Gerald Nabarro used to be famous for having a car with the number plate NAB1. The blue link NAB1 takes us to a protein instead. Perhaps we need some disambiguation? Until we have all this data nicely organised, it's best to leave it where readers and editors can find it and that is mainspace. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do we need to organize these data though? A list of all articles on aircraft which have a tail number? That is an important list because...? What sets these apart from the aircraft with articles but without a tail number? You are creating a list of a random subset of the notable aircraft group, and haven't given a good reason for having a list for only this subset. Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a subset; it seems to be the main list of individual aircraft. The only other list of notable specimens that I can see is list of aircraft in the Smithsonian Institution and that is more clearly a subset. Per aircraft registration#International standards, an international convention was established quite early in aviation and so only the earliest models such as the Blériot XI would be before that. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That we don't have a full list doesn't mean that this isn't a subset. It is a subset of all aircraft with an individual article on Wikipedia, based on whether they have a tail number or not. That is a very poor defining criterium for a list. Fram (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still not getting it. The point is not to list aircraft that happen to have a tail number because just about all aircraft have tail numbers. The point of the list is to index all individual aircraft for which we have articles. This list is then structured by military/civil and by country. It's only when you get to the country level that it then uses the registration number and that's because the registration number is the standard way of uniquely referencing the aircraft. You're not offering any better way of structuring this information. Andrew D. (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move out of article space. Tail numbers are a useful and standard way to identify aircraft. They can be compared to ISBN numbers for books, authority control numbers for authors, or geographic coordinates for places. Perhaps a better way to organize this information would be as some sort of metadata associated with pages about aircraft. Someone who is more familiar with wiki metadata may be able to provide more information on how this could be done. Pburka (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Apart from tying aircraft by registration to relevant articles, this list serves a useful purpose in maintaining Wikipedia by keeping non-notable aircrashes out. This is facilitated by editors who watch this list, and scrutinise new entries whenever they are added to the list. Apart from helping readers to find articles, it also serves a useful editorial/maintenance purpose. What harm is it doing? Absolutely none that I can see. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a content policy which says that content of value only to editors may be maintained in the main article space? The argument based on editorial value appears to fail WP:USEFUL because this list does not benefit the reader. See also WP:NOHARM. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep ~~unless sourced with verifiable materials, otherwise weak keep~~ - Where are the sources for this information? This is very technical info and should have sources we can review. References point to off line books and lists. I am unable to verify any of this content is even accurate. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerDogWest: - the linked articles in the 3rd column are the references. Although in article space, this is not an article/list in the ordinary sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "References point to off line books and lists" but WP:V only requires that if a reference is given it is verifiable, not that you personally can verify it there and then. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks, I found the references. I'll update my vote. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Readers don't need this list: if you know the serial you can just type it in, if you don't then this list is far too long and cryptic to identify it. If every plane with its own article is to be listed somewhere for maintenance purposes, categories are expressly intended for this purpose. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) [clarified 09:35, 31 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 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mjroots. Nothing more needs to be said. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that an answer to the question I subsequently asked in reply does need to be said. This may be one reason why this debate has been relisted a second time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of individual aircraft and add time period, civilian/military, possibly some sort of measure of size/weight/capacity, etc. as well. The tail number is a bit of a red herring; it's just one small datum of the major information about each entry. Category:Individual aircraft and its subcategories encompass a couple of hundred articles, so it wouldn't be unmanageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, leaning towards delete. Even if people searched by tail number (falling afoul of WP:USEFUL), this article is so chopped up into tables that it would be easier just using the search box. Most of the entries are airplanes that crashed, so List of individual aircraft would not be substantially the same list. ~~I'll probably create that list regardless of the outcome of this Afd.~~ I've created that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list seems unnecessary, since a reader is unlikely to start with some tail number and want to go from there to an article about the airplane. I would also not want a list of addresses of notable people and organizations, or a list of ISBNs of notable books, or a list of license plate numbers or VIN numbers of notable vehicles, or a list of serial numbers of notable locomotive engines, or a list of inmate numbers of notable prison inmates. or a list of badge numbers of notable police officers. Not every list that could be created needs to be created. Edison (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
weak keep the article isn't optimal, and the sources are buried in the articles, but it could be improved. I know that tail numbering schema is in widespread use in the US, for example: N###UA is typical for United Airlines, N###AA is for American Airlines, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best reason I see for keeping is that it might be useful, does not seem to be though. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of individual aircraft, adding a tail number column and country to the table in that article, as well as the airplanes that are currently in the List of aircraft by tail number but not in the List of individual aircraft. That way, it is possible to sort the information not only by tail number, but also by other criteria. Would be a pity to delete the valuable information gathered for this article. Martinogk (talk) 04:46, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krasnoleninsky Refinery[edit]

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

Lack of reliable third party coverage, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. This article was PRODed on 2 November 2015 per reason: Not enough coverage by the third party sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article was DEPRODed on 5 November by now blocked IP address without giving any reason why it was DEPRODed. Beagel (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Search engines turned up a uniform zero hits about this facility (other than the wikipage). Utterly fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement. Wikimandia, would you give some Russian insight? SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as major scam, thanks @SwisterTwister: for tagging me [63], [64] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Wikimandia

and this was actually PRODded but removed by someone who has habitually removed PROD notices (including myself and some other users I frequently encounter). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a sock with a grudge if I've ever seen one... There is no valid reason to deprod this article!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:55, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murdaland[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG, especially the "significant coverage" part. The only reference is an obituary in which the magazine is referenced in one paragraph.<"Murdaland: Dark Tales For Tawdry Times"> gives me 36 ghits with no reliable sources to be found and <Murdaland magazine> gives me ~3,000 hits, which is better, but it's a lot of blog posts and false positives. From my research, I don't think there's enough sources available to establish notability on this magazine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Murdaland could be a plausible search for Murderland, so a redirection there is also a possibility. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This publication just doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:26, 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 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only results on a Google search are either promotional links to the Murdaland website/ its Facebook page/ similar non-independent sources, or are mirrors of this Wikipedia article. No independent evidence of notability detectable on any terms. KDS4444^Talk 05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to publisher Cortright McMeel (yes, McMeel article needs work but he is notable ie. [65] - some Short reviews. This magazine although only two issues, appears to have quite a cult following from the number of blogs etc I looked at from a google search (stopped after 1st 150 pages:)), so there will probably be some readers who will look for it. I did find this [66], an interview with him in which he says "Murdaland is something I’m very proud of." but not enough for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:46, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Achrach[edit]

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

No notability Conan The Barbarian (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. No sources found outside the one cited in the article, from the Dawn website. That article itself implies the dish is not notable, noting that those who have heard of the dish are "a tiny minority as none of my friends had even heard of it until they ate it at my mother’s table in Karachi." Were it more widespead, I would expect to see at least recipes in South Asian food cookbooks, many of which are available worldwide. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:23, 23 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 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Geoff, minor dish Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:20, 13 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 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beanfest[edit]

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

Article about an event for a small group of climbers. Was restored as a contested PROD through the REFUND process. After searching I can only find references from blog sites, forums, their own facebook page and an interview which mentions it but does cover in any depth, none which proves notability enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Sourcing includes REI forum posts and facebook. The restore request suggests Wikipedia be used as a place to preserve this event's history, but WP is not a web host. Vrac (talk) 01:01, 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 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 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 no consensus. The article has been improved since being nominated but the AfD has lacked participation. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zone (play)[edit]

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

No sign of notability, and no third party references as per previous AfD in 2011, no major improvements to article since then. samtar ^{t} 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. samtar ^{t} 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:01, 22 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 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the following resources might conceivably have content about the play. I may try to hunt some down now in my local library, although I am not sure if they will be there:

Maurice Bourassa, L’idéologie dans la cellule de Marcel Dubé (Édition Presses de l’Université du Québec, Montréal 1980)
Maximilien Laroche, Marcel Dubé (Coll. Écrivain canadiens d’aujourd’hui, édition Fides, Montréal 1970)
Madeline Greffard and Jean-Guy Sabourin, Le Théâtre québécois (édition Boréal, Montréal 1997)

/wia /tlk 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis of some academic texts I have found discussing Zone. I have added them to the article and will continue to search for more texts. /wia /tlk 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 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! 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capricon[edit]

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

Haven't found anything that suggests that this is a notable convention. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:46, 22 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 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The convention has been operating for over thirty years, with multiple guests each year. The convention is a volunteer-ran organisation, and is the premier volunteer ran science-fiction literary convention in Chicago. The history, combined with average yearly "warm-body" attendance between 970-1120 each year and a notable list of guests, I would suggest that this convention's page should remain published and publicly viewable. As a further discussion point, do we - as a community of editors - have a list of standards to comprise "notable"? Lady Nhytefall (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Lady_Nhytefall[reply]

Yes, there is the general notability guideline, plus other useful, relevant links and information on that page as well. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capricon is currently in its 36th year and is the longest running 4 day sci-fi convention in the Chicago area. - marindad

Capricon is the second longest running convention in the greater Chicago area. The event to be held in Feb. 2016 will be the 36th annual convention. Capricon is the only four day convention in the Chicago area, and has an annual membership of approximately 1000 people. A sampling of notable past guests of honor at the convention include: Authors: Mike Resnick, Cory Doctorow, John Scalzi, Lois McMaster Bujold, Terry Pratchett, Larry Niven and Frederick Pohl Artists: John Picacio, Kaja Foglio, Les McClaine and Don Maitz Others: Tom Smith, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Dr. Demento and Steve Hockensmith --pheltzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheltzer (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pheltzer, It being the longest running 4-day convention is not very impressive if it is the only 4-day one. Membership and notable guest on their own is not enough to qualify for an article. Can you show that this convention meets the general notability guideline? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using the guidelines from WP:ORGDEPTH, the following articles can be used to support the notability guidelines: Amazing Stories Magazine article, WGN tv coverage of the Capricon 34, Web Series "The Con Men", FunctionalNerds Podcast about Capricon 35, Chicago Now Capricon Recap, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheltzer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Stories source is not independent, writer was asked to participate in a panel there, he accepted it and wrote about the experience. WGNTV isn't signifiant coverage, basically a notice that the convention is going on. Ten Wing Media, maker of "The Con Men", doesn't seem very well-known, established, or popular (many of their "Con Men" videos struggle to get even a thousand views). Looks like it is made up of only three people. Not that any one of these disqualifies it (not sure if any do), it's just that with all the factors added together I don't think it could be used to establish notability. Podcast looks like an interview with someone at Capricon, not specifically about Capricon, I also don't think a "Functional Nerds" podcast can be used to establish notability. Chicago Now is a user generated blog style site, not a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE - it's big enough. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see attendance size mentioned in that essay if that's what you meant. And ~1000 attendance events aren't that rare. Highschool/college level sporting events, opening of large, seasonal parks/facilities, and even some peoples' birthday parties could regularly get 1000+ attendance, yet most aren't considered notable here. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I think I do see why the nominator believes otherwise. The difficulty that I have in deleting this article is that the List of science fiction conventions points us to a whole lot of conventions, most of them at sub-national (i.e., regional or local) levels. Sure, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a compelling argument, but what we have here is so much other stuff of the same nature that it begins to look like a consensus to have these sorts of articles. And this particular convention has been around for a long time, with a guest list that includes top-shelf authors in the genre (meaning that my opinion might have been different if this were one of the articles about small local conventions). Rainbow unicorn, how would you feel if the introduction was pared down to remove the fluff and the article was re-classed as a "list" article? I don't mind during the grunt work on that, if there is a consensus that this is the way to go. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that if you and others believe it should be kept. This one may be towards the side of being notable but there are some smaller and/or not as old ones on that list that are more likely not. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your take on some of the other conventions on the list. You and I would probably find ourselves on the same side of the fence for some of the small, local ones. As for the matter at hand -- I'll get to work on cleaning up the instant article, but I'll probably not have anything done until tomorrow. If you like the way it looks as a list article, perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn at that point. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The conversion to 'list' format has been completed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure basically as Books and browser found some links but nothing obviously better so draft & userfy if needed and it's also worth noting the original author was a "capriconchair". Notifying past users Dravecky, Realkyhick, Shsilver and Lmv4321. I JethroBT (long time no see ), are you familiar with this? SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Notability is not a competition and "rarity" is not a factor. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but about as weak a keep as one can give. Seems to barely meet WP:GNG, primarily because of tenure. It is a bit "listy," though, and verifiable sources are pretty thin. I don't have really strong feelings one way or another about this one, frankly. Realkyhick (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capricon has many features which set it apart from other conventions which can, and should, be included in the article, ranging from its inclusion of a series of hoax panels (which have engendered some controversy) its historical relationship to Windycon. They just need to be added to the entry with appropriate sourcing. Shsilver (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A search on Google Books shows little snippets mentioning the convention, like how a Japanese programming track drew in as many viewers as the American programming track in 1985. That's the kind of stuff that's really needed here to make an article, but there just isn't a lot of that kind of independent coverage available. I am generally seeing a lot of bare mentions of the convention, where it takes places, and that it deals with science fiction. I agree with NewYorkActuary that a list article is a better format given the circumstances. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:54, 12 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 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity Strategy[edit]

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

Original research, very similar article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 06:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better at this time. Notifying PRODder Ningauble. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are several fundamental problems with this article, each of which is sufficient grounds for deletion:
(1) To quote the deletion rationale for a previous version of this article, "This is a single analysis of cybersecurity, written as though there were 'one' strategy and 'one' framework for cybersecurity, which isn't by any means the case."[67] By way of comparison, the Military strategy and Business strategy articles illustrate how the broad notion of strategy applicable to a particular field should be covered in an encyclopedic manner: Those articles (a) cite sources that discuss the field broadly, (b) discuss a variety of strategies that are individually notable in terms of WP:GNG, and (c) cite sources that compare and contrast those strategies. This article describes "The Cyber Security Strategy" as the be-all and end-all of strategic thinking in the field, which is neither true nor supportable by any reliable sources.
(2) "The" strategy is defined in terms of some "recent standard Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity", which is evidently so recent that it has yet to be promulgated as a standard anywhere, and in terms of "The CS5L, Cybersecurity 5 Layout model" (CS5L CMM) which was found not notable (both articles by the same contributor). As such this is essentially an essay of original research.
(3) Although not overtly promotional in tone, there appears to be a conflict of interest in using Wikipedia to promulgate ones own ideas, as presented in a blog post, or promoting the strategy and framework of one's own company.
In sum, as noted by Blue Rasberry in the above linked AfD, there appears to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:42, 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 to Naanga (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nivas Adithan[edit]

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

Very minor actor who has only been active since early-mid 2012. Some minor coverage in sources, but don't think passes WP:NACTOR and subsequently WP:GNG constraints. scope_creep 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

He has appeared in several notable, award-winning films as well as in lead roles - both Kaaka Muttai and Thanga Meengal are both critically and commercially successful films, while his work in Ula and Naanga garner several more sources online. Also take notice that the coverage of actors from Indian cinema on the internet, is way below the numerous sources you would find for the same in English films. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no obvious better improvement and even WP:INDAFD simply found this. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice that you show an awareness of that tool. Below I examine what it offers a bit more thoroughly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT:' Redirect to the actor's debut film article. If, and when he makes it big, the article can be restored and re-worked. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, Human3015, AKS.9955 and Yash!. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naanga. In looking further with WP:INDAFD... The Hindu speaks toward Adithan's Naanga in some detail and speaks directly toward his role. In a different article The Hindu speaks toward Radiopetti and Adithan's role, specifically calling him an "upcoming actor". Growing news provider World News Network in presenting news from reputable sources speak about Adithan having named roles in other films. His career being brief, and he being sourcable as an "upcoming actor", I think the article is a touch TOO SOON. It can always be resurrected when the fellow gets more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per MichaelQSchmidt. Ya sh ! 04:42, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Von Haselberg[edit]

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

Not a notable person. The body of the article is mainly an opinion expressed by Woody Allen Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either or both Bette Midler and Martin von Haselberg. At this moment her notability mainly derives from her parentage. However, she is at the start of her career in acting and there is more than once source in the article that acknowledges that. Should her performances continue she could meet WP:GNG in a few years. A merge of the info that is salvageable should allow for any eventuality. MarnetteD|Talk 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bette Midler as this is likely a more common search and there's nothing to obviously suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep von Haselberg is continuing to gain more series roles and movies. I added another four part reference to the article where she has been signed as a regular on an HBO series, shooting a movie for HBO, plus two other films.

http://deadline.com/2015/10/mtv-nicole-byer-pilot-casts-three-sophie-von-haselberg-fahim-anwar-rachel-hilson-1201567622/ Zpeopleheart (talk) 07:01, 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 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly acceptable stub. She's had coverage and is filming an HBO series. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 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 06:34, 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 Delete by RHaworth (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of {{{url}}}) --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

මහා මංගල සුත්‍රය[edit]

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

This article does not make any sense. The Pancake of Heaven! 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've listed this article at WP:PNT requesting that any user that speaks this language weigh in here. Judging from the (very) rough translation I got through Google, I'm going to suspect it's not worth keeping but I'll wait for someone fluent in the language to say for sure. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyright violation. I'm not sure whether it's been copied from here or here, but it's almost certainly from one of them. Adam9007 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:13, 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 delete. WP:BE - Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly/Archive. Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Angus Meyer[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable as the creator of an app, which essentially just asserts that he exists and parks the referencing exclusively to sources — his company's own website, a community weekly newspaper in his own hometown, two university student newspapers — which cannot carry a person's notability. Also probable WP:COI, as the article was created by User:HarvardLaunchLab1 — although the article doesn't explicitly state that the subject is directly associated with Harvard, it does say that he currently lives in Cambridge, MA. Delete, or redirect to Getmii. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Punjab[edit]

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

Not even a single entry in the list is notable and page is just indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOTYELLOW. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:NOTDIR.--Vin09 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not acceptable at its current state. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:56, 12 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 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSNQ (AM)[edit]

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

Not a legal broadcast station under FCC rules. The WSNQ callsign is not licensed to any station, anywhere. No station within Pennsylvania is licensed to broadcast on the expanded AM brand (1610 to 1700 AM). No AM stations are licensed to Sarver, Pennsylvania.

Page is unsourced, full of OR, does not meet GNG. Major WP:V and WP:N issues. Part 15 stations do not enjoy the same inherent notability under WP:NMEDIA as regular AM/FM/LP/HD broadcast stations. Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nominator. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 05:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While a Part 15 station can occasionally be eligible for a Wikipedia article if it's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, Part 15s do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NMEDIA — and this article is completely unsourced but for primary sources and a 74-word blurb. That's not even close to what it takes to get an unlicensed radio station like this over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwak si-yang[edit]

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

I think the man fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and also of course, WP:NACTOR. Only started in 2014. scope_creep 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless some interested editor can uncover some additional sourcing after the next relisting of this AfD, I tend to agree that the topic does not presently seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR.
Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stathis[edit]

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

Sources in the article are almost all either run by him or fringe and not acceptable for a BLP. The CNN source has a one sentence mention. His books are self-published. I couldn't find anything convincing when I searched. I don't think his appearance on the Thom Hartmann show etc is enough. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at News and browser but nothing convincingly better. Pinging tagger WereSpielChequers as the only other tagger Toddst is unfortunately no longer active. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely add catimprove to an article, when I do it usually means as with this one that it is so far outside my area of expertise that I can't properly categorise it. In this case I added living people and catimprove. Then came back later and removed something 404 sourced and negative..... As for the deletion, notability is marginal at best and the subject is contentious - deletion is probably for the best unless others can find good sources. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:21, 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Garrett Smith[edit]

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

She is a regional representative to a state school board . Such positions do not lead to the assumption of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as any sources are almost certainly going to be archived here I still am not seeing any convincingly better improvement for a local school board member. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local school board member who was elected to state board of education. First woman president of the state board of education. Represented nine parishes. Qualifies as regional officeholder, as would a public service commissioner. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. (The state board of education would fall under sub-national or provincewide office in these cases.)Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (It's a statewide office with single-member districts.) Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That clause is usually for state assemblies/senates, not for people on a state school board. czar 03:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low-level politician (on state school board), even as president, is not sufficient for automatic notability (which I don't believe in anyway). Only sources in this case are local, so this subject is not asserted as a remarkable topic of wider import. Looks like there's quite a mess in Category:School board members in Louisiana/Wisconsin... czar 14:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't remotely make a difference if she is on the school board at the local level, state level or national level. The question is does she meet notability according to GNG. All GNG requires, is that she be covered in RS and not be fleeting. There are plenty of people included in WikiPedia, from Kardashians, to Hiltons, to Spencer-Churchills who are included on WikiPedia not for doing something but for having their non-contributions noted by the media. Likewise, there are plenty of scientists and academics who have contributed to society whose service is not noted in secondary media and thus they are not included in WikiPedia, regardless of how beneficial to mankind their contributions may be. This woman contributed to society and was covered in the press. As for the statement "sources are almost certainly going to be archived" that is totally irrelevant. RS guidelines do not require that sources be on-line. Further, GNG doesn't require that sources be provided, only proved to exist. Barring the primary sources and non-reliable sources given on the file, there are 7 articles from either the New Orleans Times-Picayune or the Minden Press-Herald. The Times-Picayune is a well-known paper the Minden Press-Herald, though regional has been awarded by the Louisiana Press association for investigative reporting, albeit at a later period, still of record. 5 of the articles cited, show Smith in the headline, so though no on-line access is given they would appear to be substantially about the subject. In addition, in the Picayune article, there are indications that further sources may well exist, as she "was active in the National School Board Association And The Southern Region School Board Association". SusunW (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The regional-ness of the school board appointment matters not for the GNG but the secondary notability guidelines (e.g., the politician guidelines) that approve articles even without a showing of sources, so that's why it makes a different there. As for the general notability guideline, merely appearing in an obituary and local news alongside a handful of mentions in articles primarily about the board and not her leaves us with mostly primary sources (some inappropriate at that) with which to write the rest of the article. As for other articles, other stuff exists—when judging these sources on their merits, this subject's coverage is marginal. czar 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't get an obituary like the one she had if you're not notable. She passes GNG, as per SusunW. In addition, if a county clerk is notable because they are elected officials, why not a school board? I suspect due to the era we're dealing with that many of the secondary sources are in print, but I see enough here to keep the article even if a few references need cleanup. Slighly offtopic, but to answer an earlier statement in this dicussion, as a librarian, I take issue with the idea that everything gets archived digitally. That's just not true. There is a ton of information sitting on microfilm that still has yet to be digitized so that it's accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Assuming that human information is all digitized (or even available to the general public) is just wrong and shows a lack of familiarity with sourcing information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, president of state school board passes requirements. Appears to pass GNG too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think she passes the politician guideline if that's what you meant. State school board president is not included in Template:Current Louisiana statewide political officials, which should give a good idea on what counts. Not sure if otherwise notable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an interesting and well written article, but it lacks significant third party coverage about her, the article subject. Much of the more promising sources are primarily about the school board, or educational institutions, but not specifically about her in a sense which satisfies GNG. Can anyone find and add any source which genuniely infer notability on her? isfutile:P (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Connecticut State Board of Education members has seven entries. The Louisiana board has eleven entries. There are four entries in Category:Portland, Maine School Board members. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hyper-local figure simply not notable enough for a global encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She could also qualify as a local politician with adequate sources though her role was statewide. There is a place for "local poltiicians" with sourcing under the Wikipedia rules. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage is the specific line in the rules. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC) She died before Internet was widely available; this makes it harder to find more sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SusunW and Rich Farmbrough are correct, this obviously passes GNG! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:36, 13 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 18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Prasad Singh[edit]

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

Can't find any good sources on this author. BLPPROD removed without giving any reason. The references in the article are academia.edu, which seems to be a site where one can login and upload their "research papers"(!), second ref is a self-published blog and third reference is of him winning ₹ 300 for this poem book Aao Khuli Bayar. But I can't verify who awarded this money. Seems trivial local award. Please note that a politician also goes by this same name and various others also share parts of this name. So please avoid throwing google search links here. In addition, the creator User:Professor Ravi Ranjan has previously tried to add this name in various lists[68], [69], [70] and templates[71], along with their own name.[72] §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it simply cannot be improved. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 31 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! 04:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Yash!, AusLondonder, LaMona, Tokyogirl79, AKS.9955, Human3015, SpacemanSpiff. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dont see the article improving further. In the current shape and form, the person is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I found any substantial sources for "Rajendra Prasad Singh", then they were about the politician. There are VERY few mentions in the Google books which I doubt that is enough. I am unable to see any room for improvements and seems to be failing WP:GNG AND WP:ANYBIO. Ya sh ! 04:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 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) Ya sh ! 00:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan (telco)[edit]

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

This is an interesting one because it seems notable with links such as this, this, this, this and this but I'm not entirely sure. At best, this could lowered to a stub with the notable events such as the Fortune listing of 51 Companies Changing the World and being Afghanistan largest and leading's telecommunications company therefore I nominated it for comments and any available insight. Pinging Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. Please use article talk page, not AfD to discuss improving article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 12 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 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Sanchez (music industry executive)[edit]

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

Open and shut of no better notability and improvement and my searches finding nothing better than this and this. This actually started as a link to the disambiguation Oscar Sanchez but was filled with this in March 2007 and has thus stayed the same since then. Pinging the only user PhilKnight. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - but not by much. Does not seem especially notable though those closer to the scene may now better.45sixtyone (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:25, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hargreaves[edit]

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

Open and shut case of no better notability and improvement and the best my searches found was this, this and this. This has existed since June 2008 after "Seandesigner" began it and this has not changed much since then. Pinging Epeefleche, Lectonar, Geniac, Apteva, DGG and Orangemike. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. If "His work is in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York." he is notable by WP:CREATIVE. We do need a citation for that; it is not in their on-line catalog. I added some other referecing DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on google. Appears Sean wrote his own article on wikipedia and is generally nn. Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Pirzada[edit]

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

Questionably notable (that is, independent from his father) and improvable as the best my searches instantly found was this, this and this and there's imaginably more at local news sources but this seems somewhat obvious. Pinging ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI, StAnselm, Bender235, SoWhy and RadioFan. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't really say much about notability. All I did back in 2011 was some general copy-editing. Also, I remember finding the tone of the article weird, and suspected single-purpose accounts Saqibnajam (talk · contribs), Humahakeem (talk · contribs), and Ali Imran Shah (talk · contribs) of POV-ing. --bender235 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant enough, fails notability Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:15, 12 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 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ,[reply]

Beyond Unbroken[edit]

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

Two brothers who played roles in a notable band formed this band, but I don't see any third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another case of no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect page to Monte Money until band becomes notable. 75Indians75 (talk) 20:31, 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 02:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:24, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gilbert Family[edit]

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

Typical coatrack article, sourced to a few local news pieces. As all of the subjects appear to be BLP1Es, I don't think a standalone article for them is appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tagged A7 because there is no credible reason for notability whatsoever here. The article is completed ridiculous - a girl was murdered and her family spoke to the local news like every single family who loses someone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:23, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shapers[edit]

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

Non-notable musical entity. Prock101 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I see no obvious better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources and no particularly strong reason to believe any will be forthcoming. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning Man (U2 song)[edit]

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

No reason why this song merits a standalone article, and I see no point in making redirects in cases where the song title mentions the artist. TheLongTone (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches turn up nothing but lyric, fan or youtube hits. Does not appear to meet notability for songs. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unclear notability, but has sources; by redirecting the content can be kept for merging or exporting, and possible restoration as an article if more sources are found. This was created as a redirect five years ago, and shouldn't be deleted according to WP:RFD#KEEP reasons 1, 4 and 5. Peter James (talk) 22:43, 10 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. (non-admin closure) With no prejudice for a renomination. Ya sh ! 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Sees Syria[edit]

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

promotional article for a small local organization with unproven claims. It is one of many pages created by the same user (he even made a page about himself!) all nominated for deletion. Wikipedia is for sharing knowledge not political propagandaZebras234 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article itself appears well-referenced, in addition to further source coverage, at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references are about other similar but unrelated movements. Also, the claims about significance and number of participants are dubious (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are similar movements, we can't have articles for all of them. Aside from the many sourices, doesn't seem to stand out in a sea of similar movements. Maybe this would be better served merged into a larger more significant article. TypingInTheSky (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now with the possilbility of merging into a broader article as suggested above. Does seem notable though. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 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 18:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Anagnos[edit]

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

Unremarkable stuntman lacking non-trivial sourcing reddogsix (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems somewhat obvious with no obvious better improvement. Pinging Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While they clearly don't pass WP:NACTOR, nor meet WP:GNG (since I couldn't find any in-depth coverage), I feel they do pass WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. A search on Books returns dozens of mentions, showing his activity in the film industry, including this, which I feels satisfies the Basic requirement, that and his appearance in more than 170 films and television shows. Very poorly sourced, but I think an interested party could source this better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 23 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, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:19, 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 delete as WP:A10. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulahad mushe[edit]

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

Seems to be a copy-paste of an already existing article, complete with an infobox about the user. MB298 (talk) 03:18, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tjernagel[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:ENTERTAINER. Coverage consists of local paper and press releases. I found one article in the Telegraph Herald. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy if needed as I see no obvious better improvement. BTW thanks Jbhunley for delsorting this yourself as I appreciate when users initiate it themselves (recently, I find myself using these more than the daily logs as it's easier and exact). SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 23 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, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:17, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FusionOne[edit]

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

Seemingly open and shut case of no better notability and improvement and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and this simply hasn't changed or improved much since starting in June 2009. Pinging Epeefleche, RHaworth, UninvitedCompany and author GRC250. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company was sold in 2010 to Synchronoss--the article is hopelessly out of date, and may not be worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think some of the arguments forwarded above are flawed, at least as they are phrased--notability is not temporary and therefore neither the lack of new details nor the company being acquired as an asset and ceasing to operate as a recognizable independent entity are argument for deletion, if notability and other standards are initially achieved. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether the content presently int he article is substantial enough that it will benefit any future readers even to the most minimal extent necessary to justify its existence. New sourcing might remedy this issue if the company were still in operation and being covered by tech industry press, but this is not the case, and perhaps this is what the previous editors commenting here meant to address. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plain and simple, this company isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, right? Not a Who's Who of business? Chisme (talk) 19:05, 10 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 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Chatelain (music producer)[edit]

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

I'm not sure if and how this can be improved as my searches found nothing better than this and the Frennch Wiki is basically the same. There's also no obvious target for moving this elsewhere aside from If You Listen where he is mentioned as a composer but I nominated here for comments. Pinging MER-C and In ictu oculi. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice) Being CEO of any random entity does not make one notable. Unless CBE is notable for some reason, I see no reason for the international reader to find this biography notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 23 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! 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Walter Görlitz, Michig and Vrac. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:12, 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. Sandstein 12:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Boyfriend[edit]

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

I can't find anything to support notability for this band. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can. A track used in the soundtracks of th films Home Alone 3 and A Cool, Dry Place([73]), plus coverage: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Not the most notable of bands but at least borderline. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic doesn't count as "coverage" and neither does the LA Music Awards profile. Their song being used in two soundtracks might give notability to that song, but only if there was coverage of it. A magazine doing a teeny article about "nipples" in music and mentioning this group had a album by that name doesn't give them much notability. If they don't have chart success, a band must have in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Allmusic coverage is coverage. That's a rather bizarre argument. Re. the film soundtracks see WP:BAND criterion 10. --Michig (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is just a directory, not much different than IMDB or TV Guide listings. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I may say delete for now and at least mention elsewhere as I'm still not seeing much for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 21 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! 00:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether a brief, incidental, and blog-like review on one of allmusic's tracklist pages could constitute a reliable source is debatable, but I don't think we need to tease that issue apart in this case, since the review really provides very little detail about the band in this instance. On the whole, I tend to feel that sourcing here does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book mentioned above, Going Pro: Developing a Professional Career in the Music Industry, was written by the band's manager, so it's not really independent. The award doesn't look notable, either. That mostly leave the soundtracks, and criterion #10 discounts itself as a sole indicator of notability. I agree that Allmusic is more than a directory, but its mission is to be so comprehensive as to be useless as an indicator of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Can't find any reliable sources for the radio network. Only can be found is that the congressional franchise were granted to them. Sources cited in the article are dead links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:48, 29 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! 00:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as I'm not seeing much for a better separate article. Notifying author Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and also past user WayKurat and also lastly interested subject users RadioFan and Neutralhomer. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author - I was undoing the action of a vandal-only account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:18, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcknight[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional and does not show notability. They ran two kickstarters and are now selling the results. Google search only finds announcements of their kickstarters and various places that sell their products. Kirschkuchen (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as this has stayed here long enough for better improvement to be made and I'm not seeing anything currently obvious to suggest better. Pinging Derek R Bullamore and Evaders99. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 22 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 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parti Unité Nationale[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable party, which has apparently never elected anyone, or gotten as much as 1/10 of 1% of the vote (that is less than one out of every thousand voters) in any election. A google search found a number of news stories listing them among the parties that have registered candidates, and one very brief interview with the head of the party, but nothing beyond a passing mention. In looking for sources, please note that there is or was a party of the same name in Hati, apparently it was associatied with the Duvalier government. Do not confuse the two. Mos the the hits I found were in French, but Google Translate is good enough to distinguish a passing mention from significant coverage, and I still read a little French anyway. Someone claiming to represent the party posted at the Teahouse recently, asking that "false statements" be removed or else the article deleted. This person claimed that the version on the French-language Wikipedia was correct, and had been deleted for "no reason". Apparently it had been deleted for their equivalent of lack of notability. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I just added the former name to the find sources. no comment on AfD status at this point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an link to an article in Le Devoir, which is Quebec's newspaper of record. The article does not mention the party in passing - the article is about the party. This was just the first article I came to. Ground Zero | t 01:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to searchers: as well as the Haitian party noted by DES above, there seems to have been a fascist party of more or less the same name, the "parti de l'Unité nationale du Canada", as reported in this nasty little piece in Le Devoir of 18 August 1938. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is a registered political party in Quebec. That alone makes it notable. There is no justification for limiting Wikipedia to major parties. This one has run candidates in four consecutive elections, which is more than a lot of other parties. If there are false statements, they should be identified and removed, but that is not a reason to delete an article. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion. Ground Zero | t 00:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Ground Zero. Where is the guideline that says that being a registered party makes a group notable? WP:ORGSIG says:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists. (wiki-links and notes in source omitted.

I think that is the proper standard to follow. Where has this party been discussed in any depth by independent sources? Any small but dedicated group can register as a party and run candidates. That does not mean that anyone ever takes any notice of them. One article I found seemed to say that there were only 300 members of this party (although I may have misread this). Small does not mean non-notable, but small and ignored does. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 23 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 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made as I found no obvious better improvement (unless others can find better especially French). SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 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. Notability is not temporary, true, but I don't see that notability has been established in the first place. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DucKon[edit]

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

Haven't found anything that suggests that this is a notable convention. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Con. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 22:11, 22 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 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DucKon, when operating, did host the Golden Duck awards. However, it has lost a lot of its notoriety in the last few years, finally culminating in it's hiatus/shut down. There are rumours that it will resurface, however this author is unsure of the validity of those rumours. Finally, unlike WindyCon and Capricon, DucKon is not well known outside of the immediate Chicago fan communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Nhytefall (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is not temporary and neither "notoriety" nor "fame" is a requirement for the general notability guidelines. Even if the convention never returns, that will not alter its notability for Wikipedia's purposes. - Dravecky (talk) 08:57, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Cagnetta[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Only reference is a press release. Bahooka (talk) 22:01, 22 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 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President of a major organization--Snowytriwz (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if it can be improved but Delete if not. Notifying DGG for some insight with this familiar area. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likj many engineers, he has no publications. I'd accept if he were Dean of a major school of enginingeering, but Hartford's is not particularly distinguished. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillz FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 22 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 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as I found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 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. Treating as an expired PROD after three weeks with no objections. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Score[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG — no coverage in other sources. Also doesn't meet criteria under WP:Notability (media) as far as I can see. Nsteffel (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:11, 23 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 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 13 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 18:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friction (film)[edit]

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

I don't see anything that would help this entry meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:59, 22 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 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I cannot determine that this film meets Wikipedia's notability standards of WP:GNG or WP:NF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for (at kindest) being TOO SOON. IF or WHEN the film is completed and receives coverage, the article can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage yet to make it notable. Jim Carter 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 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. Sandstein 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the culture[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Given references either do not mention the title or are not significant secondary coverage. Google searches not showing anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:18, 22 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 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Zeiss[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 and this and there's no obvious improvement to this currently unacceptable version. Pinging Eeekster and StephenBuxton. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 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 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:06, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Knorr[edit]

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

I found links here, here, here and here but I'm still questionable to its notability and improvement (with this staying the same since June 2007). Pinging RJFJR an Gilliam. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article from The Bryan Times verifies the content, but, on the other hand, the entire Wikipedia article seems like a blatant copyright violation of it. It's possible the newspaper article is itself based on a press release. I'm not really sure what to say. I guess I'll try to clean up the article a bit. Most of the awards and honors seem regional, but the USPS award was also mentioned in this article by The Toledo Blade, which seems to use awfully similar phrasing to the Wikipedia/Bryan Times article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 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 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:06, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Gregori McKenzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still questionably notable and improvable as five years have passed since that last AfD and there is no obviously better improvement with the best my searches finding this and this. It's also worth noting this started in November 2007 but was not touched until February 2009 (1 bot tagging) and August 2009. Pinging Milowent, Cirt, TenPoundHammer, CTF83! and Malcolmxl5. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll respectfully defer to community consensus as determined from the outcome of this discussion here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wow, an AfD from 5 years ago. SwisterTwister, how do you find articles like this one to nominate? I'll take a look again. it appears i did not improve it back then, but i did confirm there was available sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Milowent, I've recently made a consistent habit searching for these articles using Special:RandomInCategory (orphaned, no sources, needing cleaning and promotional). Excellent question and thanks for asking,

SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has attracted some attention in The New York Times and this book. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 12:55, 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 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but no prejudice against an appropriate recreation further down the line when notability can be established. I did not find sufficient sources about the person to justify her having an article, and what there was seemed very flimsy. Checked on Highbeam, NYT archive, as well as Google. I do see quite a few hits for her in travel books and magazines on Google Books, but mostly advertorials/promotion. I am sure that if someone was prepared to put in a lot of extra work, the article MIGHT be able to be brought up to minimal standard, but what I see doesn't lead me to believe that it could easily be done. The current article is full of redlinks (suggesting that her notabilities aren't that notable in themselves) and some of the tone is very promotional and sounds like PR speak. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mabalu's comments are pretty much on point. I held out hope for this article 5 years ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 12 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 04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compa[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. XXN, 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 30 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! 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, doesn't pass GNG. Szzuk (talk) 19:41, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Team Delta[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Article contains a bunch of links where employees/founders were quoted but none of them have coverage of this company itself. Vrac (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was PRODded shortly after starting in January 2007 but the tag was simply removed by the author claiming they would add more information but I found no obvious signs of better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 04:37, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumagoro (wrestler)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A professional wrestler with who only debuted earlier this year. Works for a mid-level Japanese promotion with no accomplishments to his name. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:14, 29 October 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) 19:16, 29 October 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) 21:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from being incredibly poorly written, as per above editors, not enough coverage found in the search engines to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if notability can be established, the writing isn't worth saving. Eeekster (talk) 01:44, 13 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 04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daiki Inaba[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has wrestled two years in a mid-level Japanese promotion with no accomplishments. At the moment, he is not notable. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:12, 29 October 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) 19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable person with no evidence of notability. In addition, the extent of copyvio is too obvious to ignore. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:27, 29 October 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) 21:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth third-party coverage to establish basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was never correctly transcluded before despite !votes. Procedural Relisting. KTC (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No appropriate reliable sources to establish notability and even if we could assume such was forthcoming, the current "content" of this article violates numerous core policies and guidelines. and is not remotely encyclopedic in nature. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no inline references. Delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 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 04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Trace Shopping Center[edit]

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

This is a generic power center that is a subregional shopping destination with the usual Target/Home Depot/local department store anchors and other smaller shops among it; there are much larger shopping destinations nearby (Grafton's development, for instance) that do not have articles here. PROD was removed under claim of Kohler Company ownership, but the village of Kohler has the land as part of the village and provides police protection and provides the usual advice about clientèle so a payday loan store or other fad shop that clears out after a few weeks isn't part of this shopping center; it is under other ownership. Most sources found are mostly barely-veiled PR about businesses in the shopping center (i.e. ribbon cuttings for the CoC) or the usual 'check out our store here' mentions, or esoteric leasing information. Nate • (chatter) 20:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon deletion of the article, the shopping center will need to find it's way on the Kohler Company has I have confirmed with the Village Clerk's Office that Deer Trace is owned by the Kohler Company. Asher Heimermann (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters regarding deletion, but Land / GIS data from http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us indicates that Kohler, 444 Highland Dr owns land adjacent to the shopping center, but individual tracts are owned by other companies in other states, Target, etc, not Kohler. They probably owned the land before, but apparently don't now, according to public land records. Certainly not worth mentioning prior ownership or ownership of adjacent land in an article about Kohler Company. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD was redlinked on the AFD log until 11/2. shoy (reactions) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ordinary shopping centre, with no evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:29, 11 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 speedily deleted by Orangemike per CSD A9 (music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live That Song[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The song was released by a non-notable singer considering for deletion as well. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician, with a Wikipedia article about them that was created by the same person of whom created Live That Song. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill that song. Doesn't seem to have charted (mind you, I'm not quite sure where to look, but I assume it would have been mentioned in the article if it had) or been reviewed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – WP:A9 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Wayne--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:02, 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. There is no point in wasting editors' time leaving this to run for a week: the article is clearly not going to be kept. A promotional article on an amateur band with no evidence of significance: it satisfies at least two criteria for speedy deletion: A7 and G11. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus M.N.[edit]

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

Article about an unsigned boy-band with no released recordings, presumably written by the band's drummer. Main source is the band's Facebook page. Which is understandable, as no reliable, secondary sources can be found. Fails WP:BAND. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply certainly see nothing better. Pinging taggers Velella and Masum Ibn Musa. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely failed to provide notable guideline. Looks like an advertisement. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought it a strong case for CSD when I tagged it but hoped that the tags would stimulate some reputable refs. However, I see no improvement since. No notability. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:19, 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. czar 08:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sold-Out Software[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability on the searches. A few brief mentions, not a single in-depth article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article itself, i checked google and googlenews for refs, nothing there that I can see. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing better and a WP:TNT deletion at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aerosmith outtakes[edit]

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

A long list of mostly unsourced fan speculation and otherwise poorly (or primary) sourced non-notable stuff. Really, sources like this should not be used in any Wikipedia article. The takes that made it into the official discography are or should be mentioned there, and the rest doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are 38 references; granted, there could be more references and better references added (they do exist) and the article could be improved a bit, but the article should not be outright deleted. Having the outtakes cataloged here makes it easier for researchers to understand where the takes came from, how they have evolved, what's still out there, how rough outtakes from one album were developed and placed on later albums, etc. Aerosmith's overly-long discography has already been broken up and it makes sense to have a separate page for the unreleased material, of which there is considerable documented information. Other artists of similar stature have similar articles and we should strive to improve this article to be on par with the others (see: List of unreleased material recorded by The Bee Gees, List of unreleased songs recorded by the Beach Boys, List of unreleased songs recorded by Pink Floyd, List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna, List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson, etc.) Abog (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of songs recorded by Aerosmith, let's keep the recording history of Aerosmith together. Otherwise, delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into List of songs recorded by Aerosmith; there may be 38 refs, but virtually none of this sourcing is WP:RS-quality. Aside from this, these sources only provide minute details about various pieces; they do not in any substantive sense discuss the notability of the core topic of "Aerosmith outtakes", and this notability must be established as with any other article (see WP:SAL). Details on these songs could be added to a stand-alone section in the main article for Aerosmith's discography, provided consensus for such a move can be gained there (and I doubt that would be difficult), but regardless of the outcome of that discussion, this particular article, violating multiple core guidelines as it does, needs to go. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:46, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Macias[edit]

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

For "one of the most influential political strategists", I am having a real hard time finding sources. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not turning up WP:RS. If this person is in fact influential, they are very much behind the scenes, and actively avoiding a web presence. One comment by someone with this name on a political blog is insufficient. --Djembayz (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP with no RS coverage found in searches. Supposedly "known as one of the most influential political strategists in the United States" and he has absolutely no presence on the web. I don't think so. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 13 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 04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. Liano[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography. PROD contested. Subject has some but limited notability but it is probably not enough to trump the COI issues here. The author has also made promotional articles about his own films at Barberland and Everything Strange and New. DanielRigal. (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as the awards suggest something but there may not be enough for a particularly better article at this time so draft and userfy if needed. Pinging past users DGG and Blackguard SF and also interested users [email protected], MichaelQSchmidt and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is promotional and subject is insufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable as yet. Being nominated is not winning. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Subject simply hasn't received significant coverage. Userfy for now. Blackguard 07:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable director/producer, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If he had several rather than just the one shared Gotham Awards nomination, I might argue for a keep under WP:ANYBIO, and if he had a few more sources speaking about him rather than these four, I might feel inclined to keep under WP:GNG, and if his films had enough coverage to meet WP:NF, I might argue a keep under WP:FILMMAKER. If the situation ever improves, we can always resurrect the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable director/producer, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 09:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyllfully - Couldn't you be a bit more creative & come up with something yourself instead of copy-pasting my entire !vote ? . –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I know understand policies and makes total sense. I've moved my bio to a user page. Have to say -- my first experience w/ wiki is pretty awesome and the technology behind the auto gen flags is amazing. Please delete. Thanks. Adliano (talk) 20:24, 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.

[1] "‘Gods and Kings,’ by Dana Thomas". The New York Times.

[2] Alexander Fury (2 February 2015). "Gods and Kings by Dana Thomas, book review: Exposing the seams,". The Independent.

[3] "'Gods and Kings' book tells stories of high-stakes fashion". newsobserver.

[4] "Gods and Kings by Dana Thomas and Alexander McQueen by Andrew Wilson review – brutally unsympathetic lives". the Guardian.

[5] 'Gods and Kings: The Rise and Fall of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano', by Dana Thomas - Review. The Spectator.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]