Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 October	23 October >

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 speedy keep. Per SK4 - Although not banned they are blocked ... Whatever closed . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert the close & tag per G5 but I then realized I'd need to remove it from the log & other places ... It's too much fucking about so have reverted - If it's renominated then the 2nd nom should probably be treated as the first!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Fuentes[edit]

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

This article does not meet the WP:GNG and lacks sources. Many of the sources are her official website and from YouTube. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Recommend deleting this AfD nomination per WP:DENY as nominator is now indef blocked as a sockpupper of User:CookieMonster755. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getmii[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable app. No independent sources with in depth coverage. Press releases aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since nomination another SPA has appeared. A number of press-release style references have been replaced with a reference to http://caltechcampuspubs.library.caltech.edu/2927/1/Issue%203%2C%202015-16.pdf which is classic student journalism: Meyer is continually humbled by the amount of buzz Getmii receives isn't going to be winning any Pulitzer's soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Indeed, I saw that Getmii, an app that is heavily used on my campus, was flagged for deletion. I'm not interested in spending my time editing Wikipedia articles. I created this account solely to add a source from a top 10 US university (Caltech) that I deemed consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. Nowhere in these guidelines was it necessary for the article to be a candidate for winning a Pulitzer. In addition, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that users refrain from placing sarcastic comments. The so-called non-notable app, a point that I would wildly refute, was released to the App Store three weeks ago, and has since been the target of significant coverage from independent reliable sources including Boston Globe, Black Hills Pioneer, The California Tech, Smashd, Product Hunt, Odysseys, etc. KhalifaMalibu (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)— KhalifaMalibu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Mkdw ^talk 12:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ^Same, just here to keep Getmii on Wiki. It's big here at MIT. The app is three weeks old and already has adequate coverage from independent reliable sources. The app is notable, and looks like a significant player in the post-April 2015 Nepali disaster relief efforts. Gossipsquirrel (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)— Gossipsquirrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep I read about Getmii in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago and saw Getmii featured on Smashd.co. Getmii is a new app and is starting to gain more and more traction. I've posted on Getmii and already received many responses via the app.YaleGrad2011 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)— YaleGrad2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Mkdw ^talk 12:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Made this account to defend this. Getmii is covered by independent reliable sources including here at Caltech where Getmii was on the cover of our campus newspaper (vetted by a editorial team) and in the Boston Globe. Algorhythmbeatz (talk) 21:36 21 October 2015 (UTC)— Algorhythmbeatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a wikipedia account to edit and add to Cold War era German culture and history articles, but I personally use Getmii and so do many other members of the UC Berekely community (which I am a part of). The app is growing. Don't shut down what is a highly-informative Wikipedia article. Noelduarte19 (talk) 15:27 21 October 2015 (PST)— Noelduarte19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPA comments aside, per guidelines, searches don't turn up enough coverage to show notability. Other than the single Boston Globe story, there is another brief mention and then zilch on any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 22 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! 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep With coverage from Black Hills Pioneer, Odysseys, Smashd, The Boston Globe, The Wellesdley News and The California Tech within its first weeks on the App Store, I vote that Getmii has already established itself as notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is an SPA. I created this account with the express purpose of defending an app that's clearly snowballing on campuses across the nation. KhalifaMalibu (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Mkdw ^talk 12:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and at least draft and userfy if needed as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite best efforts of various socks, no significant coverage has been found. Any available coverage is trivial. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kerth[edit]

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

He seemed to have been somewhat well known locally but my searches found nothing convincingly good (particularly better coverage about him, some of these links are passing mentions aside from this, this, this, this and this. This has not changed much since starting in November 2005 and although there is no target, I thought of mentioning him elsewhere but there's simply not much weight. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His Post-Dispatch obituary [1] and follow-up articles about him [2][3] are substantial coverage that make clear he was considered an important and influential figure in St. Louis. Reasonable editors could differ on whether a local figure like this is sufficiently notable, in Wikipedia terms, to warrant an article; on balance I don't find compelling reasons to exclude him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm on the other side of the line than Arxiloxos. Do not feel the sources meet the notability criteria. The local coverage is sparse for someone to be considered notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's borderline, but I think he meets minimum criteria for notability. A brief trawl through Google turned up several sources which could be used to flesh out the article.--Aervanath (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't see the keep side advancing any significant coverage that would make notability more than marginal. On that basis we should honour his request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dobson[edit]

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

Previously deleted on the basis of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (see AFD1 for details). Recreated but I don't see any taking this much further forward in terms of showing notability to trump his request for deletion. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are tens of thousands of similar articles on Wikipedia showing the basic biographical data, labour history and main publications. I guess more than 80% of all biographical articles on Wikipedia are this way. When the basis is right, a specialist can come around and expand the article some more to describe the context, meaning and spin-off of his work. And as long as this doesn't happen, these articles have a status in Wikipedia as being a start-quality article, which is the regular practice. In a situation like this I would appreciate any effort to get this process started. If therefore this article should be deleted first, so be it. I already clarified on the talk page, that I noticed this name was mentioned in 30 present wikipedia articles. Some of his works are cited over a 1000 times, which makes him notable enough for inclusion. There is a similar article on the German Wikipedia. And tens of thousands similar articles there. And tens of thousands similar articles in older encyclopedias. Frankly, the motivation to delete this articles reads to me as a request to delete most content of Wikipedia and all encyclopedias. -- Mdd (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus of the last discussion was to delete the article. If you disagree with the decision, then you should go to WP:DRV, not just recreate the article. Having checked the deleted version of the article, I don't see much difference. The number of incoming links (some of which are not about this Andrew Dobson, unless he has also written about birds in Bermuda for example), and the existence of articles in other language versions of Wikipedia, are not themselves proof of anything. Appealing to WP:WAX isn't great either, and hyperbolic statements suggesting that the motivation is to delete most of Wikipedia won't help. Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the Dutch and English Wikipedia I have contributed to over 10.000 biographical articles, creating and/or significantly improving over 2500 articles, and I am the first to admit there is a lot the improve here. Studying Andrew Dobson on Google Scholar learns he is co-author of multiple books cited over 1000 times, and he authored some high cited works himself. I can also understand that there can be disappointment, that this is not (yet) represented in the current article. I think the right expert hasn't come along yet to make this happen. I would very much like that more experts would participate to wikipedia and make such things happen. yet in my particular field, and even more on a smaller Wikipedia like the Dutch Wikipedia I don't see this happens very often. For me this is a motivation to keep contributing even though I know I might go beyond my actual expertise. My experience say the basics are just correct here. Yet, I might have overseen some of the wikilinks to this article, I will double check. -- Mdd (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. Ok, I double checked: 27 wiki-links seem to be correct, and 2 were wrong. I am sorry, my mistake.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 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! 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator. There's nothing in the article to trump WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'm also going to request that the closing admin salt the page so that it can't be re-created without good reason. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any solid basis for considering BLPREQUESTDELETE; the subject is a reasonably prominent figure, an Oxford University Press author, the winner of a noteworthy award in his field (linked to a different prize of a similar name in the article), and his website shows no intention to maintain a low profile -- indeed, it shows a clear pattern of prominent public advocacy. His website also notes he was a coauthor of the "Green Party General Election Manifesto" earlier this year. Politically active folks often try to control or limit what others write about them online, but it is not behaviour we should be indulging on Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never participated in one of these discussions before, but I just came across this while looking for information on Andrew Dobson. I agree that the article could be better and does need more references, but I think he's clearly more worthy of inclusion than a lot of other BLP entries - I've seen surprisingly detailed entries for non-league sports players or one-hit wonder pop stars and he's far more prominent in his field than that.20:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)AT-Ben (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ ~~at subject's request.~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt, not a must have article, will probably currently rank as "low importance". If his future actions give him signifiant attention this can be reconsidered. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Place[edit]

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

Appears to be a short series of animations available only on the web. Not seeing any third-party coverage or anything establishing notability. Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The notability guidelines tell us that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." On that premise, this barely squeaks by with an academic paper and critical acclaim/BAFTA notice.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:21, 15 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! 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "academic paper" seems to be a student research project published on the show's website [4] and the "critical acclaim/BAFTA notice", seems to be a British Academy Children's Awards nomination mentioned in the article for a different, possibly non-notable show, The Transporters [5]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

360 No Scope[edit]

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

Non-notable gaming term lacking coverage significant enough to warrant an encyclopedic article. An ephemeral meme and catchphrase briefly popular in 2014. Blackguard 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This term can be written in any related article, no need of separate article. There is "no scope" to write a separate article on this term. Only some forums and urban dictionary found on google search. --Human3015^TALK 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really is a candidate for speedy deletion, but it is difficult to identify the appropriate criteria. It comes close to A1, but I suppose there is just enough context to guess it is talking about a computer game. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dicdef with no room for expansion. shoy (reactions) 13:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G1, WP:A1, WP:A11, also pure made up nonsense as I've never heard of the term even though I used to do FPS online games. Donnie Park (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's real, but not notable. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sabbath mode. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat module[edit]

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

This seems to be the same thing as Sabbath mode. Page has also been tagged as a WP:NEO since December 2011. I don't think a merge is necessary since everything is already covered on Sabbath mode page. mikeman67 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The above analysis seems to be correct. I suggest somebody go over the text of both articles to make sure nothing needs to be merged, and then we can redirect this to Shabbat mode. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect: as per above users. The New York Times source given in this article does not even have word "module", but it does have "mode". --Human3015^TALK 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Sabbath mode I don't see any meaningful difference between the two concepts or their articles. In looking at the various combinations of Shabbat vs. Sabbath and Mode vs. Module via Google search I find "sabbath mode" - 370,000; "shabbat mode" - 3,680; "shabbat module" - 1,040; and "sabbath module" - 419. I think that the results show which term is primary. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect as per above - seems pretty obvious. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willie and Joe[edit]

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

This article is needless reduplication of material found in Bill Mauldin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Comment: I fixed this AfD which was incorrectly formatted, unsigned and untranscluded. Cavarrone 19:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: invalid and inaccurate rationale for deletion as there is no "duplication of material", just a legitimate, brand new spinout article and a long overdue deepening of the popular Mauldin's comic strip. Also, there is an obvious lack of WP:BEFORE, as Google Books alone shows a high potential of expansion for the article (which was created just a few hours ago), including an extended entry in Routledge's World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia, an indepht 40 pages analysis in The Comic Art of War: A Critical Study of Military Cartoons, 1805-2014 by Christina M. Knopf (McFarland) or ten pages about the comics in Myth and the Greatest Generation: A Social History of Americans in World War II by Kenneth Rose. Cavarrone 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia that is not inherent to an article about the author himself. Since the wartime articles were such a significant part of Mauldin's work, creting a separte article is both unnecessary and undesirable, since it increased, needlessly, the possibility of POV forks. Anmccaff (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just vote once. Cavarrone 19:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect - belongs in Bill Mauldin. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not less than Divine Comedy belongs in Dante Alighieri, should we delete and redirect it? Please explain why Willie and Joe is non-notable, AfD is not a vote. Cavarrone 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Divine Comedy has many aspects to which Allegheri is but a footnote...and vice versa. On the other hand, what in this stublet that is worthwhile would not belong in an article on Mauldin? Let's review some differences:

The Comedy has existed independently from its creator for about 700 years, with trails of influences over centuries, continents, and cultures, some of them completely opaque to later readers and artists. Bill Mauldin died a dozen years ago.
The Comedy is a work, not contained characters. This is a bit like making an article called the Narrator and Virgil.
The contained characters are not essential to the work. Mauldin's best stuff does not depend on them, and often does not even contain them.
Dante-the-Narrator and Virgil are consistent characters throughout. Willie-the-early-image's character became Joe-the-later's characterAnmccaff (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are wasting your energy here, as noone thinks Willie and Joe is remotely comparable to the Divine Comedy... I was just commenting about the sillogism "a work A belongs to its author B", which is something obvious but hardly a valid rationale for deleting (or for keeping) something. We delete articles just if they are NON-NOTABLE (see WP:N and WP:GNG), including comics created 50, 10 or 2 years ago. And I doubt that a comic strip which attracted academic analysis and which has entries on several printed encyclopedias fails our notability guidelines. Cavarrone 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Little energy is required, and you've just conceded that your comparison was overblown, and that it proves nothing, one way or the other.
Next, the mere fact that something is notable does not, in itself, justify a separate article, although the opposite insures it does not. Necessary, but not sufficient. We do not have a separate Abott (1/2 comedic duo) article, although he is as essential as Costello.
Finally, the more discussion, the more ideas that decisions are based on surface; you appear to believe that there was a "comic strip" called "Willie and Joe", for instance. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We do not have a separate Abott (1/2 comedic duo) article, although he is as essential as Costello." Lol, I suspect you ignore we have both standalone Bud Abbott and Lou Costello articles! And again, my comparison was intentionally and obviously overblown, and I'd say it was very useful as to show how the argument "hey, Willie and Joe belongs to Bill Mauldin, he is its author, so let's delete it" was a nonsense argument, as long as we have thousand of separate articles for notable authors and for their notable works. And as long as you seems to agree Willie and Joe is notable, I still wonder why we are here... I am just desperately waiting for a decent deletion rationale based on a policy or a guideline... Cavarrone 23:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've long felt that those who LOL generally have something risable constantly at hand; you are doing nothing to disabuse me of this. Of course there could be a separate article for the actual humans, as well as as one for the duo act. Yet there need not be; cf. The Andrews Sisters. It depends on how intimately the details are intertwined. Looking for a brainless cookbook way of judging this is, well, brainless. The official policies atWP:DEL-REASON reflect situations where one need not think, when deletion is the only option. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Willie and Joe are iconic characters, sufficiently notable to have their own article. Significant coverage in real-world sources, including an ppearances on the cover of Time (magazine) gives them notability in their own right, per WP:NCHAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you linked to there is is a "dormant proposal", not any type of policy. More importantly, how do you think that retaining this will improve the encyclopedia -is there anything that should bein it that shouldn't be in the Mauldin article, and vice versa? If the answer is no, than it is nothing except an opportunity for bad research and editing, as it is now. Anmccaff (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes. This is ample material to create a featured article on Willie and Joe. The Maudlin article should be about the artist, not his characters. Note the difference between the article on Bob Kane and the one on Batman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find this far more compelling if cartoonists risked life answering desperate summonses from public officials, delivered by images projected on clouds by searchlights. To put it another way, you are comparing fantasy with something closer to reportage. Anmccaff (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is obviously a notable topic and it has just been nominated because of disagreement about a redirect. That's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "disagreement about a redirect" did you see? Aside from the essential one, about whether a redirect or a POV fork was more desirable? Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What sort of "ordinary editing" would you see fixing this?Anmccaff (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Artw (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't it, instead of a piece that only departs from the Mauldin article in misinformation or commercial promotion? I think that says something. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This comics series is not just some footnote in one artist's life. It ran for many years. Many US soldiers during World War Two have enjoyed it, could relate to it, have drawn inspiration from it to carry on their duty. It was once popular enough to inspire two Hollywood movies. It had both notable admirers (Eisenhower) as well as opponents (Patton) in the US army who had very strong opinions about the content of the comic. "Willie and Joe" furthermore has received academic praise, praise from fellow comics artists, is still being republished in collectors' books, proving that there is still interest in this comic strip to this day. It is mentioned in various comics encyclopedia as one of the most notable and groundbreaking war comics. It deserves its own article on this site as it is definitely more important than a majority of comics series who also have their own article, and who, by comparison, have made less of an impact on popular culture than this series. - User:Kjell Knudde (4:18) 25/10/2015 (CET).

Again, this strikes me as precisely why this article is a bad idea; POV fork, and associated inaccuracy. There was no "comics series" called "Willie and Joe." It did not exist at all. Mauldin drew cartoons often, but by no means always, featuring these two stock characters for "the duration", and a year or so of demobilization. I suppose that's many years, by some measures. The two "hollywood movies" were unmitigated crap, which Mauldin explicitly rejected. Had neither Willie nor Joe been drawn, Patton would still have scanned Mauldin's output with a gimlet eye. Mauldin never drew, that I am aware of, a -single- "comic strip." Ever. He was a single-panel man. The fact that crap is often given its own article by fanboys is no justification for needless articles, even about good subjects. Anmccaff (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of adaptations is not of issue here. Thousands of bad movies, TV shows, novels, comics,... have their own article on Wikipedia. Also, if having bad movie adaptations were a criterium for not giving a comic strip, comic series or gag cartoon series (or whatever you want to call it) its own article then we could delete a lot of articles. - User:Kjell Knudde 26 October 2015 (CET)

The article is not about the comic strip, it is about the characters. Similar to the way that Dragon Lady has an article separate from Terry and the Pirates, which in turn is separate from Milton Caniff. Willie and Joe are best covered together, as they swapped identities early in the piece. The article could say a lot more about them (like, most readers will want to know which is Willie and which is Joe). Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that some want to see an article about the characters - although you'll note that several seem to mistakenly believe there was a "comic strip" called "Willy and Joe." The question is whether separating them is the best way to handle it, something that can't be discussed by citing rules and policies, but only by making an informed decision about whether that is needed and useful. Both items you mentioned here, for instance, the respective identities over time, belong at least as much in the artist's article; when two articles overlap almost completely, keeping both is a Bad Thing. Anmccaff (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a snow keep situation: the subject has plenty of reliable, secondary sources already within the article. The article's talk page is the proper venue to discuss the merits of individual sources or a merge, but there is no potential for outright deletion here. czar 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0x10c[edit]

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

Reason Article is for a game that was cancelled before release. This game does not exist and most likely never will. Kirschkuchen (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Regardless of the game being cancelled, it garnered lots of coverage in secondary reliable sources and passes WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep per ferret. Game is notable despite having been cancelled. Sam Walton (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid deletion rationale. Cancelled games can have articles if they meet the WP:GNG by being covered in many third party reliable sources, much like this game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Sourced or not its not particularly notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I mean, we're taking the same stance, so I'm not arguing with you...but can you expand on that a bit? I don't really understand how that description describes how you arrived at a "weak keep" response, and Admin commonly discount rationales that don't make sense or cite any policy... Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nomination is too erroneous. Nominator's rationale indicates that neither they have seen the sources present in the article nor have read the relevant deletion and notability policies before coming here. Jim Carter 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, nice, getting bitey. I have indeed checked the sources in the article. There is exactly one article article about the game in there I would call indepth. The rest are announcements (about title or cancellation), articles about the company or the creator, a few social media pages, and a few links to the website of the company. Not what I would see as indepth coverage. Kirschkuchen (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirschkuchen: Miles away from being "bitey", my !vote is based on WP:SK and WP:COMMONSENSE. As it still seems clear that you haven't carefully read WP:SIGCOV. Cheers, Jim Carter 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. There are sources available other than the sources listed on the article. Note that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Jim Carter 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me those. I looked. The only other thing that I found was a Guardian article mentioning why the game was cancelled, and even that focused more on the creator. The project is one of hundreds of cancelled video-game projects, and only got any standard preview coverage at all because it was made by the same people as Minecraft. I just don't see any notability. Kirschkuchen (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's over 43,000 hits in WP:VG project's custom reliable source Google search. PC Gamer, Polygon, Rock Paper Scissors, US Gamer, Engadget, Gamesradar, PCMag, Kotaku (Situational source), etc, all covered the cancellation itself, and followed up with further news about the fan plans to continue trying to build the game... There's a huge amount of sourcing for the game, and whether or not people only paid attention because of Notch/Minecraft is irrelevant.. The sources ultimately wrote about 0x10c. That is almost like trying to argue Diablo III isn't notable because it was only covered by sources due to Blizzard making it. -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Tower[edit]

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

Notability Ntb613 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete notability. The links to some of the sources don't point to anything anymore as the article has apparently been taken down. DangerDogWest (talk) 17:59, 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 Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill home for seniors. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero hits on News (there were 5 hits, but for 4 different buildings with the same name). Zero on Newspapers, Books, Scholar and Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SMSAPI[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. Looks to be a product of ComVision and the article is more about the non-notable company than the non-notable product. Jbh ^Talk 13:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. This should be prodded first before being brought here, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 19 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! 17:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable and lacking any sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Case for notability not established. Not every commercial software package (or cloud service) is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No evidence this package/service is particularly interesting or well-known. SJK (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NPASR KTC (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Way to Love[edit]

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

My searches found nothing at all so I'm not sure if this ever got even minimal attention and the website is now closed (archive.org last archived it February 2012 so it must've closed sometime after that) and this has not changed much since starting in August 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 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! 13:01, 15 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! 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable and self published sources for the most part. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources did not reveal that this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mississippi State University. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Science Research Center (MSU)[edit]

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

No evidence for notability. Essentially all the references are to its own publications. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mississippi State University if at all if there's not enough for a separate article and I'm not seeing much aside from some News, Books and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 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! 13:00, 15 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! 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Mississippi State University. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral yoga (Satchidananda)[edit]

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

Rationale: Does not meet wp:notability, content is mostly self created WP:NOTSOAPBOX, clearly promotional material with puffery. also inherent importance cannot be claimed WP:INHERITORG , WP:reference are mostly selfsourced, also note the books & magazince sourced are also self published! Shrikanthv (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by nominator , as new notablitity information found and puffery can be reworked Shrikanthv (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In defense of this article, Satchidananda-Ashram didn't self-publish the magazines, books, or articles used in creating this text. The New York times, documentaries, interviews, and other first-hand sources are used. This is a Yoga style that reaches global populations, and needs to be differentiated from Arubindo's teaching. Joellepearson (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:52, 15 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! 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, it's a huge organisation, which is mentioned in other publications. So, it seems notable. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What other information do you need in order for this to be removed from the "considered for deletion" queue? Thanks! Joellepearson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze (MØ song)[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:NSONG. I mean come on the thing was released today! Jbh ^Talk 12:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn the song has, now, become notable although the release day creation of the article was sheer WP:PROMO Jbh ^Talk 18:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:25, 15 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! 16:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --fails WP:NSONG. There is no credible evidence of significant coverage. As expected of a just-released song from an unnamed album, this is way WP:TOOSOON. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC) (switched to keep -see below)[reply]
Keep - Song ranked on two different charts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no longer WP:TOOSOON with coverage in Billboard, NME and Time magazines. (Those refs are now added) With the addition of Chart rankings by Jax 0677, the song easily passes WP:NSONG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Line of succession to the former Yugoslav throne. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Yugoslav throne[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. DrKay (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Line of succession to the former Yugoslav throne, a more complete and somewhat sourced article. Subject is notable and contents of this article seems roughly correct (although it should perhaps mention that Yugoslavia no longer exists, making the claims just a bit harder), but no need to have two articles on this subject. Fram (talk) 12:08, 15 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! 16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP, likely search term. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Associates[edit]

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

no evidenceo of notability is shown for this medium sized company. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything about them other than stock reports, directory listings. They were on the Forbes "best companies under $n" list but that list is not enough for notability, doesn't give any real info about the company, and is based entirely on earnings. All I can confirm is that it's a company. LaMona (talk) 18:27, 18 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! 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - poorly sourced, non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Delete as there's nothing else to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordson Corporation[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable with this easily being speedy and PROD material and my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this. Pinging Robsinden, Kudpung and Reaper Eternal. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a NASDAQ-listed company with nearly 6,000 employees and sales of more than $1 billion. It's the kind of company that gets a lot of attention in the specialized press, with articles like this from Plastics Today or this from Plastic News. Searching for Nordson Westlake, Nordson Corp Ohio, or other variations, yield sources absent in the above searches. Nothing truly major, but enough in total to pass our notability standards. More general sources are things like this full article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer about the new Nordson headquarters, or an article about a regional award they won[6]. Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been a "primary source" tag on this article for more than five years. And that tag was an understatement. Large portions of the History and Acquisition sections are either verbatim or near-verbatim copyings of text from the subject's web site. If we were to remove those two sections as copyright violations, and also remove the Business Profile section for its adverting tone (another tag that has been on the article for more than five years), what would we have left? Not much, and not enough to justify an article. I do note that User:Fram points us to some additional sources, but how many sources will cover the subject itself, and not merely its products or headquarters. I don't know, but if nothing was added in more than five years, it becomes reasonable for us to assume that nothing substantial will ever be added. On a final note, the NASDAQ lists more than 3,000 companies; fewer than a third of them have their own article here. I see nothing to suggest that the instant company should have one, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 15 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! 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fram, mostly. Companies with $1 billion in sales certainly are notable and have to have some media coverage. Copyright and promotionalism are editing issues, not a notability issue. shoy (reactions) 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep and remove unsourced materials - should just remove the unsourced content and pare the article down to match the sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done, by which I mean that I've removed (i) the copyright-violating sections, as well as (ii) the unsourced brochure-like material masquerading as a "business profile". I also added two of the sources pointed out by User:Fram -- the brief article about the subject's new headquarters and the regional award. As for the two trade publication cites, one was for a new product and the other simply told us that (gasp!) the subject would no longer be manufacturing chill rolls. Neither was of encyclopedic interest. And what we have left is a brief description of what the subject makes, as well as a brief listing of industry awards. The items in the various searches done by the nominator produce nothing that could be added, as those searches were overwhelmingly cites to press releases (such as quarterly earnings reports) or listings in business directories (but if I've missed something, please let me know). In all, I don't see how this article could ever be expanded with sources other than the company's web site, its press released, or its SEC filings.
Since my last posting, I did a little research about the notability of the $1 billion in annual revenue that is being cited by User:Fram and User:Shoy. The Fortune 500 web site tracks more than 500 companies and I found that Rexnord (number 966 on their list in annual revenue) and Seventy Seven Energy (number 967) both have annual revenue in excess of $2 billion, and neither has a Wikipedia article. One billion dollars in sales certainly sounds like a lot, but it isn't an amount that automatically confers encyclopedic notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fram (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
There are numerous analyst reports about Nordson Corporation: 1^WebCite, 2^WebCite, and 3^WebCite are several examples from the Google News search.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nordson Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Thank you for providing the context in which our decision must be made. I expect that you and I will simply disagree on this nomination. But for the benefit of the other participants in this discussion, it is fair to point out that your three cites are merely reports on various short-term stock-price predictions, along with various buy/sell/hold recommendations. We also learn the expected date of the next quarterly-earnings report, and we are told of a routine filing with the SEC regarding stock transactions made by an officer of the company. None of this has encyclopedic value. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I ask -- Can you point us to anything in those three cites that would increase the encyclopedic value of the article? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If this clearly fails GNG then we don't keep a BLP unless there is an agreed policy that they are inherently notable. That isn't the case here so arguments to delete due to failing GNG are the policy based opinions Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Unkel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NFOOTY - hasn't played or coached in a fully professional league or at international level Hack (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been pointed out numerous times in discussions, referees don't apply to WP:NFOOTY. Unkel doesn't fail WP:GNG because he has officiated two major finals in the US, and has been noted for this on websites such as mlssoccer.com and SB Nation team pages. Tedinboston (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GNG requires the subject of the article to have extensive coverage from reliable third-party sources and Unkel doesn't seem to have this. Spiderone 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per discussion at WT:NSPORT, WT:FOOTY, and WT:NFOOTY, referees must satisfy WP:GNG as there is no inherent notability in their position. All references cited in the article and the items I find on Google are merely WP:ROUTINE coverage, thus GNG is not met. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say refereeing the national cup final in a league/nation as media-saturated as the MLS/US/Canada is enough to assume notability. Giant Snowman 20:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't even know that the 2015 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final had occurred yet, and I only live a few hours drive from Philadelphia. Even then, very little of the coverage of football (association or American) mentions the names of the officiating crew except the official reports, or perhaps at the very beginning of the broadcast, which is still considered routine. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think the author of the article failed in his/her effort to give more information about this referee. One or two sentences to describe someone in an article is completely inadequate. I have not seen any effort to expand the article during this AFD process by the author or anyone else. --♥Golf (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improvements made to make the enhance the article. Clearly notable due to multiple final appointments. USA Refereeing (talk) 16:05, 18 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! 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He reffed the US Open Cup final [7]. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But does this mean that the article passes WP:GNG? Spiderone 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jkudlick's !vote above... exactly my thoughts. JMHamo (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not policy for every referee that has refereed a national cup final to have an article. At this moment, nobody is disputing that this article fails WP:GNG so I'm leaning towards delete. Spiderone 15:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic RFC, South Canterbury, NZ[edit]

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

Does not state notability. It is clearly not a notable club. Charlie the Pig (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much here. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 15 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! 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability made, a minor amateur team from what I can tell. The fact that neither of the competitions in which the club competes have articles is telling. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cruft. Quis separabit? 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Escambia County Sheriff's Office (Florida). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escambia County Sheriff[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Little depth of coverage in reliable sources. The sheriffs office of a county with a population of 297,619--the size of a small city--barely warrants its own article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Escambia County Sheriff's Office (Florida). --Human3015^TALK 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Escambia County Sheriff's Office (Florida). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 15 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! 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Escambia County Sheriff's Office (Florida). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (CD-ROM)[edit]

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

No evidence this warez CD-ROM series meets WP:GNG. 1 NON-WP:INDEPENDENT ref to a Twilight CD website; may not be WP:V-erifiable either. One link returns WP:404. 189.25.224.254 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell how the authorship works on Tweakers but it might be the only useful secondary source from the lot. Perhaps the Dutch is an impediment to my search, but I'm unable to find any easily accessible historical news stories. I'll go with delete for now, but please {{ping}} me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding much in my native tongue (English) for this, but the infamous lawsuit/crime which appears to accompany this could be of interest-both for the article's interest to readers as well as establishing the topic's bona fides (I'll not use the n-word).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious about deletion for article quality reasons. I only suggested the above because it would establish inclusion criteria. But those are properties of the topic of the article, not its contents. If we can't yet determine that, we should not reach a delete consensus. Then, WP:DEADLINE suggests we wait and WP:NOEFFORT suggests we remove any unverified material until improvements are made.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current article needs cleanup, particularly for original research, but the subject appears notable. The www.anti-piracy.nl and fwdmagazine.be sourcing appears reliable, and i also found this pdf from anti-piracy.nl. Pirate software seldom receives the kind of coverage official releases do for a variety of reasons - this pirated collection seems notable for both its volume and for the legal actions that targeted it.Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 15 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! 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dialectric's reasoning. SJK (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Ogden[edit]

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. If not deleted, suggest merge with Tualatin, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment: I agree with you on this one. If a list of Tualatin's mayors is available I would suggest creating that list. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown (26K) mayor, with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NPOL and little evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 18 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! 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Willey[edit]

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. If not deleted, suggest merge with Hillsboro, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro has a population of 91K, so at least in theory Willey is a legitimate article topic. That said, the referencing here is was for the birds, resting exclusively on primary sources (PR profile on the city's website, a press release on the county's) with not one iota of reliable source coverage shown — and even a President of the United States would have to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch if their article was that poorly referenced. Accordingly, I'm willing to reverse myself if the article actually sees referencing improvement while this discussion is underway — but it's a delete if it still looks like this by closing time, albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can do better. Update: the sourcing has now been significantly improved, so I'm officially flipping over to a keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 18 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! 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having written articles on the last three or so mayors of Hillsboro, the sources are out there, and all the sources now appear to be what is needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's pretty borderline with respect to the POLITICIAN high bar, the size of Hillsboro being on the shy side of 100,000 which seems like a good benchmark for elected mayors, but the sourcing is decent. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No support for deletion, and nominator has also withdrawn that proposal. Merging can be considered through normal channels of editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Entrance Exams in India[edit]

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

The title of the article suggests it is meant to be a description of entrance exams for engineering colleges/universities in India. As a topic for a stand-alone article, I think this is too specific and fails the WP:GNG.

When the dust settled on the day the article was created in February 2010, however, it was a very short list of exams, see [8]. In October 2013, the first section of All India Engineering/Architecture Entrance Examination was pasted onto the bottom of the list by an IP; see [9] and [10] for a comparison. The article hasn't drastically changed since then. So what we actually have is an article that is an article that is an incomplete list. I think the article as a stand-alone list fails WP:NOTDIR.

Is the article useful? From a practical viewpoint, I think potential students would first search for the school(s) they want to enrol in, then find the specific exam(s) they need to sit to enter those schools. An incomplete list of exams, providing no context apart from the fact that they are an entrance exam to one or more engineering colleges, is not useful.

In light of the above, I think there is no prospect of improving this as either an article on the topic of exams, or as a list of exams. ~~So I propose it be deleted.~~ AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Striking out my "delete" proposition; see my further comment below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: India has many engineering entrance exams, each exam may not deserve separate article so such exams can be added in this list. This list should be improved, source for each exam is easily available. I will move name of the article to "List". --Human3015^TALK 04:35, 15 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! 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Engineering education in India. With only handful of blue-linked entries it can easily be merged in the article. also, the main article itself can't be complete without mentioning the entrance procedures and examinations. So that will only duplicate this list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Dharmadhyaksha's suggestion of merging the article into the broader topic makes sense. I still believe that it is not suitable as a standalone topic, so merging it into a relevant topic seems to be the right choice. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Esperanto Study[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 on the grounds that this event is organised by a notable body, but was reverted, so I'm bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why you tagged A7. 333 -blue 14:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, an indication of importance (as objected by A7) has been added into the article, the topic being the largest event of its kind (Esperanto learning camp) in the world. This claim is confirmed by several sources which add on notability as well (repeated articles in SME, a major newspaper in Slovakia, and an article in TERAZ.sk, the news portal run by the News Agency of the Slovak Republic). --Blahma (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy may be best here until a better article can be made. Pinging Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (WP:COI, I am a coorganiser of the event) The event was presented in national TVs (like on Markíza or TA3) and local TV stations (like on Turiec TV (since 11:00) or Central Live) and press coverage by national news. During last years auspices over the meeting took UEA, TEJO, Slovakian Ministry of education, chair of the region and major of the host city. There is updated article on skwiki: sk:Letná škola esperanta with much more information. I added big parts of the article, although partly by translating, however it was checked by skwiki's community. Now I am translating the skwiki's article into eowiki to make it possible to re-translate it into enwiki. --KuboF (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: OK, I have updated the eowiki's article, asked the community for polishing and the original author for translation. If there would be time problems, please move the article into Draft: to make it simpler for us to translate and polish the article. --KuboF (talk) 12:29, 20 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! 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanasundara Sastrigal[edit]

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

In its current form, subject doesn't seem to have passed WP:GNG. Google couldn't return something promising too. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research shows that while his name appears as editor on several apparently important books on the Gita and Upanishads, the Vedanta, etc. I could not find any reliable substantive independent sources that discussed him specifically. Retaining an article like this would typically require that at least one such source be identified and that it be connected to and support at least one statement in the article. I was not able to do this. KDS4444^Talk 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 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! 16:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Murga[edit]

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

No assertion of significance. There are no references and no indication from Googling that this is a notable film. I considered tagging for WP:A7 speedy deletion but the page has been around for a while. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty more hits in google books too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You just need to look at the Spanish version of the article to see how to do this properly. Trouts all round. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Trouts all round". I owe nothing to wikipedia or this project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the sourcing and (to be frank) the article was non-existent before this AfD nomination, it has now been fleshed-out and is at least sourced to a couple of reliable book sources. If a film is mentioned in books over 50 years after its release, it is surely of note. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - thanks for building out the article, and I will gladly take a trout for not thinking to check the Spanish version. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Castle High School (New Castle, Indiana). (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Castle Fieldhouse[edit]

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

non notable structure John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and delete~~ Merge and redirect. The article on the high school already mentions the Fieldhouse and the USA Today article. If the additional information appearing in the instant article is truly encyclopedic (and I have my doubts about that), it can be added to a new section in the high-school article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to high school article. Being the world's largest HS gym may not be deserving of an article, but it should be mentioned somewhere and is a plausible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment, I have changed my position to "merge and redirect". NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly Oppose. The problem with a merge and redirect is that this fieldhouse is used by both high schools in Elkhart (both of which have articles even though only one is linked to in the fieldhouse article). Which high school article should it be described in, and to which one would the redirect go? Indyguy (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The school district? John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about New Castle, Indiana, which mentions the Fieldhouse in its Attractions section. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Indyguy is on the wrong AfD. I believe his remarks were intended for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Side Gymnasium. John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I just realized that myself. I'll copy my remarks to that AfD. Indyguy (talk) 02:41, 16 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! 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sam Sailor, I, as the nominator, would be perfectly happy with a merge. I'm guessing you didn't notice that Indyguy had posted on the wrong AfD? Perhaps you might consider just closing this as a merge? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Nectarhoff[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:NAUTHOR. The subject has written a lot of books but I am not seeing any RS reviews or commentary outside of bookstore sites, reddit etc. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article author, Writerlier, has asked on the article talk page that the article be userfied. Jbh ^Talk 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the books are self-published Kindle books, so the author will be unlikely to be notable regardless of additional work on the article. The one "review" is actually an except added by the author himself to the site. LaMona (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy as mentioned as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability criteria. Userfy doesn't hurt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Strachan[edit]

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

Young politician running for office. No notable media coverage, notability is dubious. Article creater Nolanative3116 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local election candidates do not meet WP:POLITICIAN purely by virtue of being candidates. They may meet WP:BIO if they have achieved enough coverage, but I see no signs that this person has. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that he was already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the seat rather than just run for it. But no strong claim of preexisting notability has been shown here, and too much of the sourcing is either primary (his own social networking profiles, press releases on the city's website) or not actually about him at all (the entire history of the entire Clan Strachan). Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Valenciano and Bearcat above: A person running for, not yet elected, to office, and the office is a city council anyway, so nothing here that would meet WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of significant third-party literature specifically about this person, so no WP:GNG either. --Closeapple (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at the Memphis Zoo[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of any notability for this list (the Zoo itself obviously is notable). Every zoo has a number of animals, there doesn't seem to be anything exceptional or notable about this one. Fram (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's simply no independent notability here. Zoos are notable. Their major exhibits are worthy of mention. But there are simply no reliable third-party sources that provide attention to zoo animal lists in this manner. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:LISTN. This is simply trivia. Zoo collections change over time: a single external link to the zoo website should suffice for those seeking more info. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals at Chester Zoo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals at the Minnesota Zoo for similar rationale. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other zoo AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After sources were uncovered, consensus appears to have shifted to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgy Women[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this and this. Pinging LilHelpa, Torchiest, Lockley and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From a bit more searching, it seems likely this annual performance exists. But I see no evidence of notability. Also notice there's no French-language version of the page, and the orphan tag has remained unaddressed for many years now. --Lockley (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I copy edited this without investigating its notability at the time, and I can't see anything beyond mentions of its existence. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks for the ping, but I have no clue. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - no stake in this one. --LilHelpa (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to get coverage in reliable sources, though many of them are French-language: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. If I felt that my French skills were better, I'd expand the article, but I can barely understand these articles. Google Translate helps, but it's still difficult to get the nuance. I suggest searching French-language newspapers, such as Le Devoir and La Presse, which is where I found most of this coverage. There were also some hits from student newspapers, which I disregarded as unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - poor sources, non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC) struck out !vote by confirmed, now blocked, sockpuppet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted five sourced above. I can't help but notice that you are a brand new user who discovered AfD on the very day your account was created. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly passes WP:GNG as per the sources posted above by NinjaRobotPirate, and as per more sources I found: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Women on the verge of Hysteria". The Globe and Mail.
^ "Festival Edgy Women: femmes underground". La Presse.
^ "Festival Edgy Women - De la sociologie du strip-tease". Le Devoir.
^ "Arts multidisciplinaires - Edgy Women: la fiesta des femmes flyées". Le Devoir.
^ "Edgy Women: chercher la limite pour mieux la dépasser". Le Devoir.
^ "Sugar, Spice and Blood Packets". thelinknewspaper.ca.
^ "Women's Month Gets Edgy". thelinknewspaper.ca.
^ Marie-Chantal Scholl. "Dfdanse - Je sexe, tu sexes, elles sexys... -Je baise les yeux et In Succube". dfdanse.com.
^ "Féministe or not féministe ?". Le Devoir.

On a second look, I'd say keep per WP:HEY, based on sources found by Northamerica1000. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RAF Belton Park. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Alma Park[edit]

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

Reason Samnviv (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC) There was no such place as RAF Alma Park. There was an RAF Regiment depot called Belton Park Camp which was established on farmland not far from Alma Wood. The RAF left in September 1946, and Grantham Borough Council started converting the buildings to houses. <Grantham Journal 1 Nov 1946> carried a notice "The Worshipful Mayor of Grantham (Mr Alderman A Roberts) will officially open the Belton Park Camp Housing Estate at 3.30 pm on Thursday November 7th and will let the first tenants into possession." Then the <Grantham Journal 6 Dec 1946> reported "A chance remark by Grantham's ex-Mayor Ald A Roberts, on a recent Sunday afternoon, when he headed a tour of inspection of Belton Park camp - henceforth to known as Alma Park Estate, derived from Alma Wood, the fringe of trees running along the rear of the camp site - may go a long way towards solving one of Grantham's biggest headaches - lack of maternity accommodation.". So the name Alma Park was never applied to the RAF Regiment depot. The entry for RAF Alma Park should be deleted, and searches directed to the entry for RAF Belton Park. Samnviv (talk) 12:14, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Alma Park was the birthplace of the RAF regiment but it was too small for much to happen there so facilities were at the nearby RAF Belton Park et al. Most of the article has info relating Belton Park. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notable, does need more precise sources. Well written article. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naeleck[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are blogs, release notes and PR material and a couple spam links. Jbh ^Talk 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some Japanese sites do mention of him, but not sure whether it's about this guy.Conan The Barbarian (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy for now in any case as I'm not seeing much convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability here. I'm not even seeing much of an assertion of notability. Is it, as noted in the lead paragraph, that he wears a "black cap"? Is it, as noted in the last prose sentence, that he has his own stickers? Perhaps a supporter of the article can explain how this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources provided actually constitutes in-depth coverage of this individual, so the article fails WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm Taiwanese and Naeleck is the most popular electro DJ from Japan, often touring in Taiwan. He had his works included on pretty big music compilation here and in Japan. But then most of what I can find about him is in Japanese and I can't read it. ^[1]^[2]27.246.16.97 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aza fashions[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:NCORP. Sources are all passing mentions or quotes so fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Jbh ^Talk 12:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I'm not seeing much here. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is technically coverage in Vogue India and Elle India but it is too minimal to be substantive, so I'm not convinced that they meet the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. /wia ^/tlk _/cntrb 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News had a couple of brief mentions, and a blog; zero on Newspapers, Books, and JSTOR; mention in a list on Scholar, same with Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred J. Loos Fieldhouse[edit]

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

non notable structure John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I live very close to this (basically down the street) and it's unfortunate to have to delete but my searches of "Alfred J. Loos Fieldhouse Addison Texas" simply found nothing better than some links at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 11:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable building. DangerDogWest (talk)~~ —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a brief mentions on News and Books, nothing else on any of the searches. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the largest high school basketball gymnasiums in the United States, former playing site for the Dallas Chaparrals, and playing venue for other minor league and semi-pro sports franchises. Search simply "Loos Fieldhouse" and your searches will be far more productive. Like Wikipedia article titles, reporters don't always use the full name of venues with long names when a shorter name will uniquely identify the site to their readers. - Dravecky (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a Google news search, I turned up 1 reference to a semipro team playing there. The article was about the team, not the building. Nothing on the Chaparrals, and their Wikipedia article doesn't mention it either. I'm actually suprised at the paucity of hits. One would think it would be mentioned in articles on games that occured there. But those kinds of mentions don't make for notability, nor does the fact that a semi-pro team plays there, among other places. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply True, this article from The Dallas Morning News only barely mentions Loos Fieldhouse (as "Loos Field House", another fun-with-Google search possibility) but it confirms that the Chapparals did play some games there. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We rely on op-ed pieces for factual verification now? Again, it is a passing mention. Is there a guideline that states big league use of an arena equals automatic notability? --John from Idegon (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to show notability. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are a few sources from Newspapers.com confirming that the Chaparrals used this facility for training camps, at least [16][17]; and that after they moved to San Antonio and became the Spurs, they returned there to play [18]. Given that all this happened before the internet, we may have a problem of FUTON bias here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the arguments made by Dravecky and Arxiloxos, who found several sources from Newspapers.com and notes that there is probably a FUTON bias. The gymnasium was constructed in 1965. It is very likely there are non-Internet sources from the 1960s about the gymnasium's construction and opening.
Here is another source verifying that the Chaparrals played at Loos Fieldhouse:
Faraudo, Jeff (2006-03-17). "Cal knows what it is up against". Oakland Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01. Cal freshman Theo Robertson, who played in a similar offense at De La Salle last year, and has tried to provide his teammates with tips, even as late as Wednesday's midday workout at nearby Loos Fieldhouse, where the Dallas Chaparrals of the old ABA once played.
Cunard (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians . Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orma Slack[edit]

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

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it may be deleted.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with List of Canadian supercentenarians. Not notable enough to justify a standalone article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Changed my vote from "delete" to "delete or merge". Still don't think she's notable enough for a standalone article but as the oldest person in Canada, and with being reported on by local news sources, I think that a mini-biography could be created at List of Canadian supercentenarians. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources within Canada establish notability WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. If notability is the issue, a redirect to List of Canadian supercentenarians may be a better alternative. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge Not notable enough to support having a standalone article. Possibly merge with List of Canadian supercentenarians and create a mini-bio. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources demonstrate significant coverage or notability. Half the sources should not be used (1 and 3 fail WP:OR and 8 is a blog post), 6 and 7 are local coverage as she lived in Belleview, Ontario and the last ones are obituaries. Nothing that helps establish notability. She is however, notable to be on a list as seen at List of Canadian supercentenarians. Note that it was only "believed" she was the oldest Canadian. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. Entry is not notable enough to warrant an article of its own, but being the oldest living person from Canada in her time justifies a merger into List of Canadian supercentenarians as a section under the tables. A simple redirect to that article suffices if consensus agrees that even that much notability is insufficient. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "multiple, reliable sources" are repetitious items on successive birthdays, an obit and a link to Ancestry.com. That does not satisfy WP:GNG. There's nothing encyclopedic here. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple other AfDs of centenarians, it's clear that some are notable for being long-lived. A consistent policy is needed here lest we have death by a thousand cuts. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MBW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect. Although I agree that Mrs. Slack's age wasn't among the oldest of the oldest, I do think that deletion is too easy a solution; let's see what can be salvaged and used elsewhere. What I also find interesting is that accounts which usually support keeping supercentenarian articles in other AfDs suddenly have not been identified as WP:SPA now that they support the deletion.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'"delete non-notable supercentenarian. also this unnecessary aritcle was created by INDEFINITE blocked user.--2403:99DD:6FE5:6E00:15E3:DA92:7566:CA90 (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet sst ✈ 11:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 11:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect- The problem with these articles is what happens as medicine improves and people start living into their 140's? Does WP constantly update the article with the next oldest person? Is WP the Guiness Book of World Records? This topic makes sense to have a list of people who are or were the oldest living but not a biographical article unless the person was notable for some other reason apart from living so long. JMHO. DangerDogWest (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're nowhere near people living to 140, or even 130. The 120 barrier has only been verifiably broken once. But if, far in the future, people DID live to 140+, they might want to know how long people lived in 2015. Notability is not temporary. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does cite a number of reliable sources. Although some sources such as this certainly do not add much value to the article. However, the 109th and 110th birthday reports are pretty extensive, cotaining a large amount of biographical information. At the very least, this information should be included in a small mini-bio at List of Canadian supercentenarians. Bodgey5 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with minibio to List of Canadian supercentenarians. David in DC (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There are several articles and sources for this Wikipedia page, so she should be considered to have been notable. Mrs. Slack was the oldest person in Canada at the time of her death, quite an achievement... If she is not considered to be notable enough then a redirect to the list of Canadian supercentenarians is probably the best way to go. 930310 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar articles at other recent AfDs were not keep'd, WP:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), probably many more if I look further. So I don't think it's been made clear that living to a certain age or even being the "world's oldest..." makes someone notable. If that's the case, then the next oldest Canadian would instantly qualify for an article, even they had little or no coverage (note that, "Officials with several provincial and Canadian ministries, including Statistics Canada, said their record-keeping practices don't allow them to determine the country's oldest resident." [19]). Several of these centenarians could die within months or weeks of each other, and only have very little or no coverage as "oldest... " Would each one be notable just because they happened to be the oldest person in their county? Also note CommanderLinx's points on the sources and being "believed" to be the oldest. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources look good to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Being a supercentenarian does not in itself confer notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 19:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources for information. Only source is Rotten Tomatoes, which records zero critic reviews. 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 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. For this article, its topic notability is established through multiple sources being available even if not (yet) used. ie: DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, Cinemagazine (Dutch), Out Now (German), Moviemuser (UK), Commonsense Media, and others. And sorry LukeSurl, while Rotten Tomatoes is not perfect, it being the only source currently used does not mean the topic non-notable or not improvable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per analysis and sources above. Cavarrone 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashra Mohammed[edit]

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

Unsourced. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, found a source and posted it. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still doesn't meet GNG. IMDb is a wiki, and isn't a good source. The majority of information in the article is also unsourced, which is a problem with it being a BLP. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Below the notability threshold. The BLP Prod should not have been removed either as it was placed before the only, non reliable, IMDB reference was added. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that I can turn up, and IMDb, being user-generated, is insufficient to save the article. /wia ^/tlk _/cntrb 22:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbay Clinic[edit]

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

Advertisement. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty blatant advert. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed some of the worst promotional content and had planned to expanded it a bit based on the current refs. However, after looking through the references they all appear to come from a press release as they contain the same information and quotes. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, other than announcements that the clinics have opened, to meet WP:GNG. I would be OK with a redirect to Thumbay Group as well. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete - non-notable advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete especially this one as there's not much convincing and even the parent company Thumbay Group seems questionable. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Pretty clear from searches it's not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Just Chilling under criteria G11 and A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jowsu breise[edit]

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

Uncertain notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The page is now suitably improved and still gaining resources around the web.--TheBushewecker (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Seems to meet CSD A7 as far as I can see. No claim of notability. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kimball[edit]

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

Unclear notability, mere self promotion ? Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete likely as I'm not seeing much obvious here. SwisterTwister talk 15:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable venture capitalist, head of a non-notable firm. The references are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The article consists mainly of name-dropping lists of companies he invested in, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The author of the article has been busily spamming Kimball's name into dozens of Wikipedia articles: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear this person does not meet the notability criteria and this article was created simply as a promo piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinophile[edit]

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

Procedural AFD; this was proposed for deletion with the rationale of The article is possible Original Research/synthesis of irrelevant facts/material: mere mentions of liking the culture's food somehow equate to being a "Filipinophile", Lea salonga, Manny pacquiao, Will Smith, appearances on Ellen degeneres etc have nothing to do with the topic. The word "Filipinophile" is not in any dictionary., but in light of how long the page has been live and the number of different people who've worked on it, there are obviously at least some people who consider this a viable topic so bringing it here for further input. Procedural nomination so I abstain. ‑ iridescent 07:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Neologism. A lot of people worked on it for sure. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, lack of RS, more self-publish sources than the reliable one. Google Books also showing a very low results. Furthermore, the Anti-Filipino sentiment article was more popular with reliable sources from Google Books (with Google Search showing an estimate of 21,900,000 results) than those favouring (only with 9,940 results). While Google News showing 0 results for "filipinophile" than 130 results for "anti filipino". ~ Muffin Wizard^;) 08:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT, the article is just an account of foreigners giving some positive comments to Filipino cuisine, tourists destinations or certain internationally notable Filipino individuals. The "filipinophile" phenomena itself is not discussed much. May be a viable article under the title Pro-Filipino sentiment.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above reasons, this seems to be a synthesis. The article contains praise for specific Filipinos yet implies that the praise should be associated with the Filipino society as a whole. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to anti-Filipino sentiment or merge to pro-Filipino sentiment. Rtedb (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Reyntiens[edit]

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

This is an interesting one because she would seem notable and acceptable at first and there are linking articles with which to move this to and my searches also found this and this making them the best links I found so I'm not sure overall but no better improvement seems somewhat obvious here and this hasn't changed much since starting in September 2005. Notifying author Crosbiesmith SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy Keep Listed in the "Peerage" [27], and multitudinous other sources [28] [29], [30] Seriously 30 hits in books alone. Her picture is in the National Portrait gallery [31]. She was a Eugenics Activist [32], [33] Plenty of expansion can be done and certainly sources exist. SusunW (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. At least technically, passes WP:POLOUTCOMES as a member of the London County Council in the 1920s and 1930s (under her first married name, Priscilla Worsthorne). We also generally regard holders of the CBE (though not lower ranks of the Order of the British Empire) as notable. Under her second married name, Priscilla Norman, she probably also meets WP:GNG for her interest in mental health issues and the admittedly somewhat honorific positions that the combination of this and her social standing gained her - it looks as if the nominator may have missed this by concentrating on her maiden name. The best source I have so far found relating to these is this book, but there do look likely to be others as good or better off-line or with restricted access - her activities in this area are almost certainly by now of only historical interest. Note that, if searching for references to her as Priscilla Norman, one has to take care not to confuse her with her older contemporary Florence Norman, who was also known as Priscilla Norman and was also a CBE. PWilkinson (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered a CBE or above to qualify per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Servo[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable and is easily speedy and PROD material with my searches finding nothing better at all other than this and this hasn't changed much since starting in October 2007. Pinging author Neoluk. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Unable to find any significant media coverage, so he fails GNG and BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article text taken pretty much verbatim from his "about me" on his blog. No third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO per search results. I didn't do a copyvio, but if LaMona's comment is correct, could have been CSD'd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangledox[edit]

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

I'm one of the most passionate enviromentalists you'll find but unfortunately I can't find anything to suggest better notability and improvement with the best my searches finding this. Pinging Nikkimaria and Madhero88. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 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 Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not enough sources.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS to support claims.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the search engines to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. O.T. Sykes[edit]

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

This needs to be rewritten with Sufficient Inline citations FindMeLost (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. self-published sources. interesting subject of the article though, the "singing dentist". DangerDogWest (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong with it? Hes a real person who made songs. Jdogmad (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply no better improvement and sourcing overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see any reason to preserve this. Deb (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 most valid deletion argument appears to be whether the content is substantial enough to be WP:SPLIT from the main article, and editors should consider themselves free to discuss that further and consider merging/redirection. See relevant policy at WP:ATD. Otherwise, there are WP:OSE arguments on both sides, and the purging of the nonnotable names has obviated the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument, a potential change that should have been considered WP:BEFORE bringing it to AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. The previous debate seemed to have a lot of people involved who were merely giving emotional statements instead of quoting policy. I cannot find any other article like this on the wikipedia that gives solely a list of victims, which this article basically is. It is a list of people who were killed and nothing else. I have already added salvageable material to the mumbai attacks article. To be frank there is no need to keep this article FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge and delete - the article is well sourced, but as you point out -- morbid. I would argue that these people for the most part were not notable enough to have an article apart from this incident, but the fact that there were victims and their nationalities I would think belong in the main article 2008_Mumbai_attacks but not as a bare list of names, which is meaningless to most readers. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerDogWest perhaps you can take a loot at the casualities section in the mumbai attacks section. I have added the material there. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of content can be moved into that article, and leaving that list of names behind. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - the wall of text of names needs to be broken down. Equivalent to other articles like List of people killed during Euromaidan. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above. This terror attack was largest ever terrorist attack on India. Considering that people died at multiple places and people from multiple nations (like US, Australia, Germany, Israel, Canada, France etc) were died in this incident, this deserves an article. It is an encyclopedic subject and it can be improved. --Human3015^TALK 10:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep but purge all non-notable names. Casualties of the September 11 attacks is a good example of the level of detail required. An external link to an official list of names should suffice. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 list neared 3,000; this one numbers >170, really not that long of a list. See link above for Euromaidan - it's well referenced and not unwieldy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering that this was probably the most terrifying attempt in India, and that multiple people (of various nationality) were targeted at different places, this topic is notable enough to have a separate article. As far as the issue of similar articles go, Wikimandia provide a good enough example for that. There is certainly some room for improvement but nothing that could warrant deletion. Yash! 03:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Isn't such a vague list of people with red-links who are noted to have died a BLP problem for people of same names who are still living? Example, the article lists Hasina Sheikh (20) (Sheikh Hasina), Abdul Razak (22) (Abdul Razak (disambiguation)), Santosh Yadav (23) (Santosh Yadav), Firoz Khan (44) (Arjun (Firoz Khan)) and there are corresponding people of same name who are living still. Also, few names would be repetitions of people who have died elsewhere; like Mukhtar Sheikh (45) (Sheikh Mukhtar Mohamed Hussein, Sheikh Mukhtar). For clarity, do we plan to write hatnotes on such biographies like "For the person named X who died in 2008 Mumbai attacks please see Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks"? And funny, there is a "Unknown (25)" also listed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation Dharmadhyaksha. While very few might search by the name of the victim, it wouldn't hurt to have such hatnotes (since the repetitions will be seen in few articles only). Yash! 09:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria the entries here would fail those three bulleted questions. Only the entries that would pass in this are already included in Category:Victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I would delete the entries in this article which fail WP:NLIST and keep only blue-linked names which are already in the category. I don't see the purpose as well as any encyclopedic value in listing out random names of people in such a obituary like directory. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a memorial website so the list of casulties is not really needed unless any of them are otherwise notable (that is already have or be notable for a stand-alone wiki article) and they if they are they can be mention in the parent 2008 Mumbai attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are administrator. Read these articles List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre, List of survivors of Sobibór, List of people killed during Euromaidan. The Avengers (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say this article is very unnecessary. Should we start creating the causalities of every disaster? Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As this is not an article, but a list. The list must be modified accordingly. We have non-notable people here List of people who died climbing Mount Everest , List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz. This page has red linked names List of victims of Nazism. Most victims have no article List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of skiing deaths. The Avengers (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brahmamgari Matham. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Swamy Ashramam[edit]

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

as per WP:Promotional and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Brahmamgari_Matham, which is the article on the village in which this building is located. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Merge and redirect to Brahmamgari_Matham. The photos would add to the other article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brahmamgari Matham as per the above two editors. Nothing to show enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Beast[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect as there's not much better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - Reads like an ad. poorly sourced. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Delete - Other than a nice piece in Vibe, not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, definitely doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoBoogie[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC JTtheOG (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete- Non-notable. Many self-published sources including youtube, facebook. as per WP:MUSIC. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero hits on all of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. clpo13_(talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to American Parliamentary Debate Association. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Parliamentary Debate Society[edit]

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

A ordinary college debate team. References are to primary sources (the team itself, the blog of an ex-member, etc. It certainly exists, but I can find no in-depth, secondary coverage indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to APDA's article for now as I'm not finding much aside from a few links particularly at Books. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to American Parliamentary Debate Association - This group is a member of the American Parliamentary Debate Association, they are in essence a local chapter in Maryland. They could merge into this article, but condensed. I would redirect to American Parliamentary Debate Association. See this page. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Parliamentary Debate Association as per DangerDogWest. Not enough independent coverage for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Opposed to a full merge; there doesn't seem to be anything here worth merging. The article is mostly trivia about one specific college debate society which isn't any different from any other college debate society except the names are changed. I'm not even sure there's much value in a redirect because this is an unlikely search term but redirects are cheap, so no reason not to. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Hodder[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:CREATIVE: no work in permanent collections of major museums, no extensive critical discussion of her work. Refs are unreliable notices DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely unless someone wants it drafted and userfied as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you supply the sources SwisterTwister? Why not add them so the article doesn't need to be deleted? If you supply them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red, someone will fill the article in. I'd be happy to add what I can. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-for now, but tag as needing sources. This list of artwork is impressive. I wish there were some sources linked to images to see it. Would really help improve the article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has met WP:GNG by significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to other comments, WP:GNG has certainly not been met. The sources given are either not independent of the subject or are promotional in nature, publishing press releases and/or listings of exhibitions. The "media outlets" are the same thing, promotional copy sent from a gallery. Her exhibition record does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. She is a working artist, yes, but not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Simply put, there are no reliable sources and notability is not established. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister, and especially Freshacconci, whose assessment hits the nail on the head. Editors simply saying that this individual passes WP:GNG, with supplying references to back up that assertion speaks for itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Anne Hillyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources are found for Miss New Zealand claim otherwise delete for no sources. Found this Entrepreneur of the Week. Claims to be Miss Universe New Zealand but I cannot find any sources for this. Her photos are well, stunning. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article doesn't claim she was Miss Universe New Zealand, only that she was a contestant. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails notability requirements, and what amazes me is that it took over four years before somebody put this up for deletion. Schwede 66 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I found nothing better than some browser links. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 always thanks MQS for improving the article & finding sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja the Mission Force[edit]

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

No secondary sourcing, just press releases and non-notable awards. The inclusion of Brad Jones and his crew does not give this one inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~non-notable~~. Editor located additional sources.DangerDogWest (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N. My own due diligence found decent reviews in DVD Talk and in DVD Verdict as well as Den of Geek and Tubefilter, and there's more. Plenty enough to improve an existing article. Will do so after work tomorrow. Y Schmidt, ^{:Michael Q.} 06:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: So what are you going to do, expect the sources to put themselves in the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well TPH, I sure wouldn't expect the person who nominates if for deletion to perform WP:SEP or make any improvements himself (chuckle), but I found and offered sources and under WP:N, notability for the topic is established even if the article needs work. And had you read all of my "keep" you might have also read of my intent to work on it tonight (sheesh). Perhaps you're surprised that I have jobs that do not permit employees to edit Wikipedia while on-the-clock. And after spending nearly three hours on highway is some incredibly nasty traffic, I'm finally home (whew). Thanks though for the smile. Time now for some WP:ITJ. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some work done. Anyone who wishes to or has the time may join in. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's sources above. Cavarrone 19:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear and convincing secondary source coverage, as ably described, above. — Cirt (talk) 23:51, 22 October 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. KTC (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Hunt[edit]

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

non-notable. Being a columnist even for a national newspaper is not necessarily notability . Being a candidate for an election doesn't add to it.Obviously, if she does win the election for the Dail, she will then be notable, but not until that. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest obvious improvement.SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep but tag for notability - article should be enhanced and deleted later if better sources don't turn up. I found quite a few sources for her. She is well known in her circle of influence. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hunt is notable in Ireland as a high profile journalist for a leading national newspaper. A google search brings up thousands of references, including some detailed pieces [34] [35] The page clearly needs to be expanded but I wonder if Hunt had been a pro-life journalist would DGG have nominated her? His views on social issues shouldn't be allowed influence who is notable or not. :/ Reggiegal (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is the first time I've been told anything about her views on abortion. It wasn't in the article; it wasn't in the cited refs; and it isn't even in the 2 columns you've just linked to. (And for that matter, how do you know what my own views on the subject might be? I don't think I've discussed them on wiki.) If you think there's substantial published comment by others on her views , you can try an new article. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Another election candidate special, standing for election does not make a person notable. If she is a "famous journalist" in Ireland, I must be reading the wrong newspapers/listening to the wrong radio/watching the wrong TV shows as I've never heard of her. If she was really notable, she would have had an article ages ago. Snappy (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet the notability criteria. The two references provided above as "detailed pieces" are primary sources, and therefore invalid for notability purposes. The lack of WP:AGF from the same editor is also of some concern. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Greco[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no evidence subject has played in a WP:FPL or senior international football to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Dry[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no evidence subject has played in a WP:FPL or senior international football to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet the notability guidelines for a footballer having not played in a fully pro league Spiderone 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Dickerson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that she has played in a WP:FPL to meet WP:NFOOTY or garnered enough coverage to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication WP:NCOLLATH is met. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Curtin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no evidence subject has played in a WP:FPL or senior international football to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Cameron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no evidence that she has played in a WP:FPL to meet WP:NFOOTY or garnered enough coverage to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Lamet[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no evidence subject has played in a WP:FPL or senior international football to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karissa Garcia[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSOCCER. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no evidence subject has played in a WP:FPL or senior international football to satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as per this edit. I'll process the closure - redirects to the articles themselves may be performed as needed, subject to the usual policies. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Leo Catholic Elementary School, Mimico[edit]

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

Stumbled upon this article while recent changes patrolling; non-notable elementary school; {{Refimprove}} placed six years ago; article only cites one source. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, most elementary schools are non-notable. Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the following articles based on a category search:

delete - non-notable schools unless there is a notable person who attended with sources. I cannot locate any for these articles. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the common practice from both outcomes and school article guidelines is not deletion, but redirect. This could have been boldly done without coming to AfD. I would propose the proper outcome here would be to redirect the parochial schools to the appropriate diocese, and the public schools to the school district. We may not do articles on primary and intermediate schools, but people will still search for them. That's why we redirect as opposed to delete. --John from Idegon (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all- the common practice from both outcomes and school article guidelines is not deletion, but redirect as demonstrated by over 2,000 redirects. . This could have been boldly done without coming to AfD. I would propose the proper outcome here would be to redirect the parochial schools to the appropriate diocese, and the public schools to the school district. We may not do articles on primary and intermediate schools, but people will still search for them. That's why we redirect as opposed to delete. NOTE: Listing these articles in the face of the common knowledge of the customary prqctice ios sisruptive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Gordon[edit]

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

A mayor of a small town, in this case with less than 12,000 people, is only notable if he is notable for something other than being a mayor, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The only sources are a primary source, directly from the city's website, and a local news article detailing his salary. Delete. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 00:01, 22 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} 00:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like his only notability is making a ridiculous amount of money, but that doesn't warrant his own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no sources indicating notability. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City is not large enough to give him automatic inclusion rights under WP:NPOL, and the sourcing is not strong enough to get him onto the WP:GNG bypass. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the highest paid government employee in Ohio as well as being an elected official crosses the WP:BLP1E threshold. -- Kendrick7^talk
Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Houtos[edit]

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

The word [outos] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) in Acts 1:18 is Greek for 'this', meaning 'this person' and referring back to Judas who had been mentioned in Acts 1:16. No citation has been produced to suggest that Houtos was a character mentioned in Eastern Christian tradition BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I cannot locate anything anywhere that can verify this article. no sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either a hoax or an error. Kudos to User:DangerDogWest for spotting it and taking the time to bring it here. No such character appears in the Bible verses cited. and even the name as given in Greek is incorrect [36]. Created edited for a few weeks earlier this year, then ceased.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.pernod-ricard-japan.com/news/whisky/20150422/465/
^ http://iflyer.tv/en/article/2013/09/04/naeleck-oddity-disease/

[1] "Women on the verge of Hysteria". The Globe and Mail.

[2] "Festival Edgy Women: femmes underground". La Presse.

[3] "Festival Edgy Women - De la sociologie du strip-tease". Le Devoir.

[4] "Arts multidisciplinaires - Edgy Women: la fiesta des femmes flyées". Le Devoir.

[5] "Edgy Women: chercher la limite pour mieux la dépasser". Le Devoir.

[6] "Sugar, Spice and Blood Packets". thelinknewspaper.ca.

[7] "Women's Month Gets Edgy". thelinknewspaper.ca.

[8] Marie-Chantal Scholl. "Dfdanse - Je sexe, tu sexes, elles sexys... -Je baise les yeux et In Succube". dfdanse.com.

[9] "Féministe or not féministe ?". Le Devoir.

[10] ttp://www.pernod-ricard-japan.com/news/whisky/20150422/465/

[11] ttp://iflyer.tv/en/article/2013/09/04/naeleck-oddity-disease/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]