Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 October	24 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatareyoubuyen[edit]

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

no documented claim to notability. The refs are none of them RSs. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant secondary source coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI the company is WP:CANVASSING on Twitter: tweet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per searches. It's interesting that if they are canvassing through tweets, that might actually exacerbate their non-notability, since not a single person has joined this discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Calvillo[edit]

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

Speedy declined on basis that specifying 5 million followers is a claim of significance. In any case, it certainly isn't notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article has no notability and certainly does not meet WP:GNG. Zpeopleheart (talk)
Delete: Some coverage from tabloids wanting to fill their remaining slots, but not WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Long (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. By established consensus, the Urban X awards fail the "well-known/significant" standard. No nontrivial biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Urban X is not a significant well-known award. No significant reliable source coverage found to pass GNG. Searching is complicated by false positive hits for the mainstream actor with the same name. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I encountered this from the other actor Justin Long and there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Urban X Award is well-known porn award, meets of the PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. First of all he's member of Urban X Awards' Hall of Fame! And then he has enough coverage in reliable sources like LA Weekly ([1]), Complex ([2]), NBC ([3]) and AVN ([4]). --JamieTheGenius (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator - The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) wrote: "By established consensus, the Urban X awards fail the "well-known/significant" standard" - please link to consensus about Urban X awards and fail Pornbio. Also, please stop personal attack in description of AfD, the AfD concerns "Articles for deletion", not users and your opinions about other users. This is the last warning. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's so right, for example here. I'm still wondering why Rebecca1990 didn't write about this to admin? This ″The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)″ guy is so agressive with everyone who edits porn-related articles. ″your behavior was described as "appalling" bad faith by univolved administrators. Multiple experienced users have characterized you as a paid editor. You're undeniably an SPA with an agenda.″, who told you that you can talk this way with anyone? --JamieTheGenius (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the guidelines for pornogaphic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here "is a member of an industry Hall of Fame". A lot of the past-cited AFD discussions about the Urban X Awards have really been about many of the miryad of insignificant award categories that this now defunct award ceremony gave out. The only past AfD that I think might be relevant to this discussion here appears to be this one, which did not have a large number of participants back in 2009. Any GNG-type claim here is likely borderline at best at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Guy, there have been several more AFDs directly addressing the Urban X awards/Hall of Fame issue, and they've pretty clearly resolved the issue: the "honors" fail the well-known/significant standard in PORNBIO. At least five members of this ersatz Hall of Fame have been deleted; no AFD has been closed as kept under recent versions of PORNBIO based on the award alone. I believe the most recent instance, less than a year ago, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyla Stylez, which also dealt specifically with the "hall of fame", and I'll repeat my analysis from there, since it has somehow escaped your attention:

The Urban X Hall of Fame is not an industry hall of fame, or equivalent to one. It was part of the Urban X awards, a short-lived for-profit awards ceremony run by one Giana Taylor, a minor porn director, married to Alexander DeVoe, a more active porn director/performer. DeVoe has won a staggering 36 awards from his wife's coatrack-event, another dozen or so have gone to his producing partner, one Brian Pumper; and, overall, the majority of these awards have gone to performers associated with Taylor and her husband. For example, in the years running up to this ersatz recognition, Sheila Stylez made about 20 releases for Jules Jordan Productions, a porn producer which partnered with Alexander Devoe. The Urban X awards and hall of fame have repeatedly been found to fail the PORNBIO standards. See

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24#Carmen Hayes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherokee_D'Ass_(3rd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaiya_Lynn
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirra Lynne

I know of no discussions resulting in a keep (under the current "well-known and significant" standard, which by consensus was made more restrictive than mere notability). If Scott Boras were to create a "hall of fame" for collegiate baseball players, and most of the members turned out to be young players he represented, there would be little argument that the "award" didn't demonstrate notability. One person's actions don't create an "industry award"; one person giving trophies out that primarily promote her husband's business interests is clearly not significant. Note that the only sources related to to this award, both in this article and the award article, are Urban X's own announcements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, there no discuss and consensus for Urban X awards that fail the "well-known/significant"/Pornbio. Over the last few years - opinions are different (and widely scattered on Wikipedia): some users treated Urban X awards as significant, some users not. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unfortunately familiar with Mr. Wolfowitz's "wall of text" that he routinely cuts & pastes into these types of discussions, but again - much of it isn't relevant to this specific discussion under consideration here.

-the Aurora Jolie AfD apparently hinged on, in part, an "award nomination for 'Best Anal Scene'", which does not apply to the current version of PORNBIO at all or to this AfD here.

-the Kirra Lynne AfD apparently hinged on, in part, an award win in "Best Couples Sex Scene", which does not apply to the current version of PORNBIO at all or to this AfD here.

-the Kaiya Lynn AfD apparently hinged on, in part, some kind of Urban X Award nomination, which does not apply to the current version of PORNBIO at all or to this AfD here.

-the Carmen Hayes DRV apparently hinged on, in part, an award win for "Nicest Breasts in Porn", which is pretty obviously an insignificant award category.

-the Cherokee D'Ass AfD hinged on, in part, an award win for "Biggest Ass in Porn", which (as I commented at the time) should not "be considered a 'significant industry award'".

-the 2011 Devlin Weed & Ray Victory AfDs unfortunately seemed to hinge on the same old 2009 "Kitten" AfD that I already mentioned above, and they both were even more poorly-attended than the 2009 "Kitten" AfD.

-the Shyla Stylez AfD is indeed from late 2014, but it was initiated by a banned sockpuppeter - so I think we can consider that it was made in bad faith from the beginning.

I understand that there are a select few editors on Wikipedia that love to denigrate all of the adult film-related awards under pretty much the same guise by just basically taking the same argument and inserting the name of an adult film industry awarding organization into that old argument, but I personally don't think that's how we should be conducting ourselves in a truly fair manner here at all. It's been obvious for many years that not all award categories at all adult film industry award ceremonies are significant. Guy1890 (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. An embarrassingly vacuous piece that includes no real biographical information, a throwaway "in popular culture" type reference as an actual line of content, and IMDB-type data that belongs on some other website. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John & Carrite - Fials PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails PORNBIO & GNG; also fails notability as per @The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)'s rationale and examples of other AFDS. Quis separabit? 14:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per sub tropical man's vacuous commentary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olkhovska Iryna[edit]

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

Heavily refbombed, padded out with information but thin on notability at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deleted before with a different title, not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a case of WP:TNT and the article is not easily comfortable. Pinging Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any in-depth coverage on the search engines. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 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 05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markelytics Solutions[edit]

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

PR for nn business Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being "PR" is not a reason for deletion. Being "nn" is. While the company appears to do quite a bit of work, I cannot find indepth coverage to support claim to notability. I also cannot find anyone using its work in white papers or citing it. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I did not realize that abbrev PR several meanings. I meant "Press Release". And all refs are basically press releases, i.e., "routine coverage". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  AAAAAHHHHH. Makes sense. I should not have assumed. I just see so many editors wanting to delete articles for their promotional tone that I (as I should NOT have) assumed. Sorry. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any valid references for the coverage of article. Josu4u (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources either. Does not meet WP:GNG nor establish notability. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 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 Procedural Close. Pages in the Draft space go to Miscellany for Deletion, not AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:25 (Adele album)[edit]

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

25 (Adele album) already exists and is more detailed than this draft and better sourced. Seagull123 Φ 21:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no further need for this. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but @Seagull123, in future nominations of deletion for articles in the draft namespace go to WP:MFD, not AFD. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates existing mainspace article. Shearonink (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or history merge. Not needed, but this is why we should just redirect to parent articles and not move to draft space so often. There are many other drafts that duplicate existing articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:31, 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. And salt. Sandstein 09:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programmatic media[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Online Advertising and the articles in that hierarchy. Note the article creator has created 200+ redirects [5] to this article, likely for SEO purposes. Jbh ^Talk 20:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment suggest that all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventory Programmatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) be added to this AfD. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle: I do not know how to bundle all of those. Can it be done by reference or is there something else that needs to be done? Jbh ^Talk 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, the redirects will likely be deleted by the closing admin. If they aren't, they can be tagged for G8 speedy deletion. At any rate, you can't really bundle redirects at WP:AFD. If this article survives deletion, you could nominate the redirects for deletion at WP:RFD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those redirects, rename this article to something that makes sense ("Programmatic media" doesn't, "programmatic media something" would: Google Books gives the most hits to "programmatic advertising", then "programmatic marketing", and then "programmatic media buying"), and fix the pretty obvious WP:OWN (and WP:COI? because seriously...) issues in some way. I'll probably develop an opinion over deleting the article itself later. LjL (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an issue from WP:AN/I#Programmatic Media. Most of the material is covered, and better, at Online Advertising and the articles linked from that main subject page. It's a poor explaination of the subject. (For a readable one, see this Gizmodo article: [6]). The huge number of useless redirects are just keyword stuffing/link spam. The article has many references, some of which may be promotional links. WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies, as mentioned above. Time to take out the trash. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern that we'd be deleting a term that is, or appears to be, actually used in literature (see above), and which is not mentioned at Online advertising ("mentioning" it may be easy, of course, but are we quite sure the topic is looked at from the same perspective that "programmatic media whatever" looks at it? I'm far from an expert in the subject). Let's make pretty sure we don't delete useful content out of "revenge" towards an unruly editor. --LjL (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I started looking at this topic one of the first things I notices is that Programmatic media is not even a term used in the literature, it is simply nonsense. "Programmatic" and "Programmatic media buying" are used but those fit easily under Contextual advertising and Semantic targeting. The whole ecosystem, which is what this article seems to be intended to target, is not really addressed in the literature as a single thing so collecting it under a single term like Programmatic media is WP:OR and smells, to me, like an attempt to use Wikipedia to define a new market/product/service. The Teletext section which brought this to ANI is, a) false and b) is being used on many web sites after being copied from Wikipedia - SEO or an indication that there is nothing even it the 'business' about 'Programmatic media' being a 'thing' with a 'history'. In any even Wikipedia is not the place to create the next buzzword in online advertising.

An article describing the automatic buying and selling of ad space, how those markets work and how the placement decisions are made would be both fascinating and useful. It seems that information is spread out throughout the Online Advertising tree but nothing really pulls it together, mostly, I believe, because no good sources really pull it together yet. Jbh ^Talk 13:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I reiterate, "programmatic media" followed by nothing doesn't appear to mean anything; however, "programmatic media buying", "programmatic marketing" and "programmatic advertising" (the three bolded terms in the article itself, which, ironically, does not include "programmatic media") do appear in literature (see above). LjL (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however "programmatic media buying" is essentially Real-time bidding (Which could use some expansion to explain how Ad exchanges and Attribution (marketing) fit in.). This article is trying to tie up the bundle by linking all of that with Big data and Internet of things etc. ie saying that "Programmatic media" is a super-set of "Programmatic media buying". That it is a 'thing' which encompasses all of those articles, that there is a synthetic whole not mentioned in the literature.

Several days were spent on the talk page just trying to figure out what the article is supposed to be about. I do not think anyone really figured it out, the consensus was to clean it up and see if something emerged. Maybe the others, who edited the article much more than I did, finally got their heads around what the actual topic was but I could not. See this section of the talk page [7] Jbh ^Talk 14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Added talk page link. Jbh ^Talk 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I never did figure it out, no. I had sort of hoped that by whittling the thing down the actual shape of the underlying concepts would become clearer, but we never got there. I do agree that "programmatic media buying" and a couple of other terms do appear to have meaning, and redirects from them to the appropriate page would not be a bad idea. The other 235 or so can go. JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could use a good article written for the non-ad-industry reader which describes what happens when you go to a web page that has ads. "Programmatic media" isn't that article. The online advertising tree has a blind men and the elephant problem; the subarticles have too much detail for the average reader, and the top article is mostly a summary of where to go for details on the subparts. I'm going to continue this discussion at Talk:Online advertising. John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never did figure out what this article is supposed to be about, either. Ad Week has an article on "programmatic", which seems to be what this article is trying to describe. They also have a tag for the term, which brings up quite a few more articles. But what exactly is this article about? Not only is it an impenetrable mess, it's full of synth-y original research. "Programmatic" (or "programmatic advertising") certainly seems to be a popular topic in Ad Week, but I'm unconvinced that what we currently have is a valid starting point for an encyclopedic article. It might be better to just delete this article, determine the proper common name, and set a clear scope for the article. At best, I think this should be moved to draft space, where these issues can be resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Online advertising. It appears that this article is being maintained largely by a currently-blocked editor with some unidentified conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a regrettable outcome given the inordinate amount of time a number of editors have spent in trying to make the article into something encyclopaedic. However, it is by now fairly well established that the article, if kept, would still require much additional work (not helped because the original creator seems determined to reinstate meaningless and/or demonstrably untrue content each time they come back from a block). Even if that alone was not ground for deletion, the facts that it is (a) about an apparently made-up term (or, at best, a non-notable one) and is (b) a content fork of an already well-covered subject, seal the deal. It's time to cut our losses and remove the article plus all the redirects to it. The redirects may validly redirect to other existing articles so I recommend they are deleted without prejudice to recreating them appropriately. I do not believe that "Programmatic media" should be recreated even as a redirect - it doesn't appear to exist as a recognised term and there is some suspicion that the article and all of the redirects to are an attempt to establish it as one. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork or Merge to Online advertising (if there's anything worth saving). Thomas.W ^talk 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete + check the other user IP's ( Macrakis, RichardOSmith, NinjaRobotPirate, Robert McClenon, JohnInDC, Jbhunley, LjL, Nagle Ddiament, User:Dthomsen8 50% likely connected to a media agency or media company 78.147.123.137 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jugdev Jbh ^Talk 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're saying here. LjL (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am retired, and have no connedtion with any for-profit company.--01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I know what the IP is saying. The IP is saying that we all either have conflicts of interest or are sockpuppets. This is a common disruptive tactic at AFD's to raise conduct issues that come out of nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Online advertising and nuke redirects from orbit There's nothing compelling in here that merits a separate article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteMerge this page with Online advertising, then delete this page as having a meaningless title. Identify the two or three suitable redirects from the collection of 200+ and point them to Online advertising. Delete the balance of those. JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the better parts from programmatic advertising and merged them into online advertising. See my recent edits to both articles. Is there anything else at programmatic advertising worth saving? John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Response changed accordingly. Thanks for the good work. JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle, @JohnInDC: - Erm, would this merge effort not require us to retain this article's history for attribution? We might now be at a point where this page should be redirected (and all the SEO redirects deleted at RFD). Reso lute 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle:, since I am terrible at properly pinging users. Reso lute 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess - I don't know. I changed my response to "delete", because if the relevant material is now included at Online advertising there's no need for this page. And if this page is substantively covered elsewhere, I don't see much need to preserve the history of this article, or that nightmare of a Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which pasted part of programmatic advertising into online advertising is here.[8]. The edit comment is "‎ (→‎Display advertising process overview: - add useful material from Programmatic advertising.)" That meets the requirements of WP:SMERGE. It's about six lines of text. Wikipedia merger policy is not to ask for a history merge for such edits; see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. (Today's XKCD is relevant.[9]) John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to salvageable parts having been merged. LjL (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a !vote to "merge and delete" will mostly simply be treated by the closing admin as "merge", as discussed at Wikipedia:Merge and delete. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really my problem, my personal belief is that Wikipedia's "deletion" system is fundamentally broken. And for that matter, generally speaking, you can't know before deleting an article if parts of it have previously been used inside another article (with "attribution" in the form of linking to history), so yeah, it's broken all-around. LjL (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article to online advertising per WP:MAD due to some merging taking place but delete all 197 redirects first. The redirects are pretty ridiculous and I can guarantee that they'll end up at WP:RFD if they aren't taken care of now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is, however, a nonsense term and possibly was chosen for the purpose of SEO. There is no such thing as Programmatic media and Wikipedia should not say there is. If the history must be kept it would be best to choose a term that actually exists like Programmatic media buying which I believe is one of the redirects and will likely be kept and pointed to Real-time bidding. Jbh ^Talk 20:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, I've proposed merging real-time bidding into ad exchange, and have been trying to hammer the set of online advertising articles into a more coherent form, with more overview, less duplication and more cross-references. Anyone want to help? See Talk:Online advertising. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then salt this and delete and salt all the SEO style redirects as an attempt to pervert the use of Wikipedia to bring some glimmer of faux notability to a term which is not in use. Fiddle Faddle 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at 4th tier beauty pageants[edit]

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

I do not think the list of individual country title holders at contests of such low rank that we do not even have articles on them, is encyclopedic content. I suggest anyone proposing such an article ought first to try to establish an article on the pageant itself as a minimum. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Big Four" list is the only thing necessary to Wikipedia, the rest are not. Donnie Park (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - somewhat trivial, although beauty pageants are a big deal in the culture of the Philippines. 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boybreed[edit]

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

Another non-notable band. Stanleytux (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no obvious better improvement. Pinging Wikicology. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another vanity page with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:18, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus David Hufford III[edit]

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

Simply questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this article has amazingly stayed the same since starting in June 2006 (shortly before I first started here at Wikipedia). SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently, it's true that he painted Eisenhower: [10]. However, this is about the only thing I can find online about him. A brief mention in a book published by the US Army doesn't really seem like it would be enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at first glance you would think that an artist who had a presidential sitting would have more to his career, but searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Other than some brief mentions, I did get one nice hit over at Books, when I removed the III - this - but even that is a brief bio of the artist who did Eisenhower's portrait. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Mesamha[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:NALBUMS. ITunes is not a notable chart for the purposes of NALBUMS. The article is completely un-sourced and searches turn up only sites like Youtube, Facebook and SoundCloud. Jbh ^Talk 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non-notable. Likely created by a friend seeing as its a SPA. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I agree. Couldn't find anything worthy of verifiability. scope_creep 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and above editors. Searches show it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Nathanson[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable (and otherwise MILL) producer/writer. Only references I can find are name-drops, brief mentions, or lists like Allmusic. Big acts listed as collaborators, but I can't find sufficient evidence and of course notability isn't INHERITED. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable due to writing and/or production credits on the artists listed most recent albums such as Chris Brown 'X", Abraham Mateo 'Who AM i', Jacky Cheung 'Wake Up Dreaming', Boyz II Men 'Collide'

Dc543 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he worked with famous people does not mean that he is famous. Please read through the Golden Rule, specifically the point about "significant coverage." I can hardly find evidence that he worked with these people, let alone was discussed in multiple sources. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have to agree with the lack of third-party coverage, which translates into a lack of notability. Huon (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so its more about the extensiveness of coverage, rather than accomplishments, notable artists worked with, record sales on albums with contributions etc? In the rules about what constitutes notability for music it mentioned grammy nominations which he has one atleast I found here, http://www.latingrammy.com/en/nominees under "creo en mi" by Natalia Jimenez, and has had multiple albums reach national music charts, and gold certified album sales.

Dc543 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass notability criteria. Working on a Grammy-nominated album is not the same thing as being nominated for a Grammy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Clash[edit]

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

Notability. Can find stuff by him but little about him. TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Like Nom, I failed to find book reviews, or the sort of articles (about who hired them, their transfer to a new position) that are often written about well-known journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

glad to revisit, if anyone finds sources - flag me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided an external source with some biographic information. / Yvwv (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First book (business book) not especially notable; second book is self-published Kindle edition. LaMona (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing to suggest immediately better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches show they fail both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 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! 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Poag[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an artist which does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Searches have come up with several blogs posts and a vendor site which does not establish enough notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an RPG writer myself, I respect the field in which he works; but he's a non-notable illustrator for a minor publisher, and we have no sources to back up any assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would take issue with the statement that Goodman Games, Green Ronin Publishing, Kenzer & Co., and Necromancer Games are non-notable publishers. These are literally some of the most venerable RPG publishers there are with over a decade in existence each. The credit list is still not completed. I added reference links for each one, but they were deleted with the comment "spam". Is there a guideline about which is a valid reference link and what is not? OSRdude (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are guidelines. References need to be ABOUT the subject of the article. For important topics within the article text, you can wp:wikilink (using two square brackets) to the relevant Wikipedia article. You generally only link to each topic once. I added a link to Goodman Games as an example. LaMona (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: The existence of WP articles for the publishers does show that they aren't entirely non-notable. LaMona (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no immediately better improvement and a better article can be restarted later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garebian[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, making no particularly strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR and citing no reliable source coverage at all. The strongest real claim of notability here is his winning of a local literary award, and that's sourced only to his own website. I searched both Google News and ProQuest, further, and didn't find a lot of strong sourcing that could be used to salvage this: while he garnered 200 hits in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies", he was the bylined author of most of them — and he failed to be substantively a subject of any of the remainder, instead being limited to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. A writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists — he has to be the subject of substantive media coverage, but that just hasn't been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reviews of his books, and like nom, couldn't find articles about him as an author. All of his books are published by small Canadian presses (one is a one-person press). This may be a matter of judging him by US standards, but his writing doesn't seem to have garnered the kind of attention we use for notability. LaMona (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now ~~Keep~~ likely as sure there wasn't much but I found this, this (which mentions the "prestigious" William Saroyan Award), this and this. Your thoughts, Bearcat and LaMona? Sure it may only be local but as I'm not familiar with this, I assume this may be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing in those searches (which are some of the same ones I already did WP:BEFORE listing this in the first place) is a lot of primary source confirmation of his existence (e.g. the books search is bringing up titles he wrote) and a few glancing namechecks of the mere fact that he exists, and very little reliable source coverage in which he's the subject — but the latter, not the former, is the type of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has written a whole series of books about show people, which is what the search is turning up. The Saroyan medal that he won was "created by the Ministry of Diaspora in Armenia, is granted for contributing to the dissemination of Armenian culture in the Diaspora". I'm thinking not high up there in the realm of literary awards. My !vote stands. LaMona (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought I would mention it. Delete for now in that case. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Epp[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but only time will tell. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Kapoor[edit]

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

Non-notable actor fails WP:Actor Kavdiamanju (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOHe is the lead actor of Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2, one of he biggest hits of Diwali in 2015. I am not sure what prompted anyone to nominate his article for being non-notable. This is obviously a false flag.--talk 11:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. clpo13_(talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The fact that they have a supporting role in a film that came out 2 weeks ago isn't enough. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 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. Sandstein 13:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Slusar[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this (not sure if this is bout her) and this and there's not even much at her IMDb. Pinging the only seemingly likely interested user BigrTex (who removed the PROD shortly after this article started in October 2006). SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. apparently non-notable roles. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage of her work to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 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 There is a consensus that it does not meet the notability standards in its current state. However it is possible that the subject may meet these standards in the future. If an article can be made that addresses the concerns in this AfD it may be recreated. HighInBC 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Ávalos[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I think he technically meets WP:NBOX for his 4th round TKO loss for a vacant WBO inter-continental title, but it's hard to make a convincing claim when boxrec shows him ranked 248th in the world (and 18th among Mexican fighters) in his division. The boxing guidelines are quite generous, probably too much so. In any other martial art his record would not meet the notability standards. His success as a junior doesn't really add to his notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep He meets WP:NBOX, but as Mdtemp illustrates he does so by a slim margin. This is a Mexican fighter that has fought all but one of his fights in Mexico, so I am not expecting English-speaking Wikipedia editors to find much on Google. That does not mean the sources don't exist, but that they are probably mostly in Spanish and are based out of Guadalajara (e.g., newspapers of that country). His one fight, the fight that was outside of Mexico, does have some coverage - [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Most of this coverage is focused on his opponent, but that makes sense considering that the sources are in English (the native language of his opponent). I think this coverage, even if considered routine, establishes enough to show that the presumption should stand considering the Spanish/Mexico factors unless someone can otherwise show that we reasonable believe sources do not exist (e.g., do a search of hard copy boxing sources from Guadalajara over the last few years). Therefore weak keep. RonSigPi (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I usually go along with articles that meet an SNG, the boxing criteria are so generous with their plethora of titles and organizations as to be less than a crowning achievement. The only coverage I could find, I'd consider routine sports reporting. I also didn't find him listed on the Spanish Wikipedia. His meeting of the SNG by having one fight that qualifies (a 4th round TKO loss) is quite minimal. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability. If someone provides significant non-routine coverage of him, or he gets more significant bouts, I'll reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 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 two sides of this coin were a lack of reliable sources and WP:TOOSOON among the delete camp and a number of reliable sources demonstrated by the keep camp but not clear whether GNG was met. No consensus at this time and will be reviewed later on when either the game is further in development or released. Mkdw ^talk 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subnautica[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No references to reliable independent sources, and searching produced largely blogs, wikia, non-independent sources, Facebook, Twitter, etc etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Found [17] with a quick google search. Right now I can't actually access any page that has to do with gaming as i'm on the airforce network, so ill check back when im on my own PC. I will probably change it to a full Delete once I can fully look things up. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through on my own system, I decided to leave it at weak delete. Though all sources are weak, there are many of them. Sheer numbers alone merit something. Lots of various reviews availible. Definitely not an "unknown" game but still probably too WP:TOOSOON. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has two reviews: [18][19] czar 20:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge for now, for similar reasons that jcmcc stated. It's too soon, and could be a short blurb on the game company's wiki until then.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in multiple reliable sources. Czar's links above, and also [20][21][22]. - hahnch e n 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 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. Valid policy based arguments on both sides. Relisted twice without further input and therefore seems doubtful that a rare third listing would change the outcome. Mkdw ^talk 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach Test (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The references are: (a) a dead link to the band on the web site of a record company; (b) a very brief note at allmusic, which is no evidence of notability, since, as its name would suggest, allmusic tries to be as inclusive as possible, and accepts content on any musician who has ever made any recording; (c) a book, which I don't have access to, but which claims to be "A comprehensive A-Z", covering hundreds of bands, so again the mere fact of inclusion is not much proof of notability. Searches have failed to produce better evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (b) is nonsense for starters. (c) is a poor argument. Does the fact that the book covers lots of bands make the coverage insignificant or make the book an unreliable source? No. The coverage at Allmusic goes well beyond a 'brief note' ([23], [24], [25]). There's also coverage at MTV, plus this, and Metal Hammer (German version), which a WP:BEFORE search might have found. That's evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: (1) Why is (b) nonsense? Simply asserting that it is, without explaining why, is no help. If you mean that it's nonsense that Allmusic tries to include everyone who has ever made a record, you are mistaken: it is their stated aim. (All right, to be absolutely precise, their stated aim is to include "every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost". Not quite the same as everyone who has ever made a record, but it comes to the same thing since we are not here dealing with someone from before the time of Caruso.) If, on the other hand, you accept that they try to include everyone, but think it's "nonsense" to suggest that that means inclusion is no evidence of notability, then I think you really have to explain why; unless you think that everyone who has ever made a record is automatically notable, then that seems to me to be common sense. (2) In answer to your question about (c), no of course I don't think that the fact that the book covers lots of bands makes the coverage insignificant or makes the book an unreliable source, and if you carefully re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say either that the coverage was insignificant or that the book was an unreliable source. All I said was that since it is so inclusive, the mere fact of inclusion is not much proof of notability, and since I had already said that I did not have access to the book, I was assuming it would be obvious that I therefore was not trying to comment on how significant the coverage was. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "a book, which I don't have access to, so that I can't say how extensive the coverage is..." but it never occurred to me there was any need to. (3) Whether something is a "brief note" is, of course, a matter of personal judgement. At 147 words (excluding the band's name at the top) it's not what I regard as extensive coverage, but if you disagree, then OK. (For comparison, the combined length of my nomination statement and your comment, excluding signatures, is 167 words.) (4) The other Allmusic pages you link to were not references in the article, which is what I was referring to. (5) The other three links you give are certainly relevant, but are they enough to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms? I'm not convinced. (6) It seems that I may have been mistaken when I said the book referenced covered "hundreds" of bands: I can no longer find where I read that, but several sources say that it covers more than 100. The book is 144 pages long, so on average there is about a page per band; more than trivial mention, but not truly extensive coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability as noted above (the fact that Allmusic covers all types of music does not make it an unreliable source and the coverage there (over three articles, not just the one that was originally cited) is significant, there are two (paywalled) articles in the German version of Metal Hammer and an MTV article) plus those cited in the article (CMJ New Music Monthly/Report, etc.). I'm assuming good faith on the citation of the McIver book (which according to Amazon is 200 pages long and covers 'over a hundred' bands). More print coverage is very likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:41, 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. No consensus has emerged in this discussion. Further discussion can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oise-Aisne American Cemetery Plot E[edit]

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

Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial has an article. Who needs one for a specific plot? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial. No need for a separate article, but easily interesting enough to preserve much of the information. Probably don't need the list of graves though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the form it took originally. Not necessarily opposed. Eventually it was split into a separate article, but I agree the full list of names is rather unnecessary unless there's sources attesting to their notability. Three names I know for sure DO have those notable sources: Eddie Slovik (HUNDREDS of sources), Louis Till (dozens of sources) and Alex F. Miranda (a few recent sources, since he was repatriated half a century after his execution/burial). Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with highlighting notable burials, but there's no need for a full list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. Plot E is a very special plot. It is very different from your average war cemetery, like the other parts of the cemetery of which it is nominally part, which contain the graves of those who died serving their country. It has special rules and there are distinct sources. Given the size of this article, I think merging would be WP:UNDUE. I would agree that in general a plot would not warrant its own article, but this is a very special case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything of merit into the parent article, the list of names is not really needed which is undue emphasis. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Originally, the section on Plot E was merged into the main article, but it was later split off (not by me) due to multiple independent sources and a lot of unique detail that overwhelmed the tame initial article. Frankly, Oise-Aisne Cemetery is no more notable than any of the other two-dozen American military cemeteries in Europe except for the existence of Plot E, which (as I said) is entirely unique and unprecedented for any military. Nobody has a place like Plot E, which is why it has garnered so much independent journalistic coverage. Nobody else buried their "dishonored dead" in a special, separate, honorless place like that with a full backstory supported by references. There's ample sources, I'm really not sure the genesis for the objection here...seems extremely spurious in the face of good sources. I'd like to note, for the reviewing admin's record, that "who needs one?" (as stated by the editor requesting deletion) is the most "drive by" excuse for an WP:AFD I've ever seen. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into another article I am a bit disturbed by the plot e article. One part of me sees this as nothing more than a criminal graveyard being not worthy of an article like thousands of others. The listing of names and crimes seems almost a glorification. These are not honored dead, but dis-honored American criminals.
This American graveyard is not "unique and unprecedented" for American dead. To Europeans the major difference is that Americans treat the dead more respectively in burials. This is why Americans took the extra effort for the burial of European enemy combatants. Yes, the Pacific campaign was an exception and unique due the heat and humidity. And also where the Americans even lost thousands of dead Americans in temporary graveyards during the war because of quick burials. Other nations just tossed prisoners into common unmarked graves. Unless the family were able to bribe or pay enough for the corpse.

I also dislike the idea of even mentioning plot e in the main article because it takes away from the main article of the honored American dead. When I searched the main article I find FIVE mentions of plot e. Plot E should be mentioned at most as a side note of dis-honored American dead. No more than a paragraph or two and a link to the article Capital punishment by the United States military at the very bottom of the article where it will not distract from the rest of the article. Maybe even placing it under the See Also section.
I would add information from the pending deletion of plot e article to the article Capital punishment by the United States military with a few more notable related cemeteries like Fort Leavenworth Military Prison Cemetery. Again this is where most of the information of plot e should be mentioned including an image or two.
Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 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 redirect to Comeback (disambiguation). Since there are a lot many links on the disambiguation page with the basic definition and link to Wikitionary, redirecting there. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback[edit]

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

This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:DICDEF to me: the word is defined, and then editors come by and stick in things they consider to be notable comebacks, all from sports and other aspects of popular culture of course and completely unglobalized. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Aspirex (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be better than deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary, this is a definition. ABF99 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - Wiktionary is a good option. But I dunno, given how many articles make use of the term in the title, and given that Comeback (disambiguation) offers a basic definition, it might make more sense to redirect this to the disambiguation page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:57, 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. Clear consensus is this is a valid topic and that the nominator's characterization of it is mistaken. Any problems identified in the discussion can be addressed through normal discussion and editing, whether the solution is splitting, renaming, etc. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th and 21st centuries[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. By definition, non-sovereign monarchies have already lost their sovereignty, and hence their thrones were already lost in some sense before the date given in this list. Many still used their titles as "non-sovereign" monarchs as a form of courtesy title both before and after the date given here. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "non-sovereign'" monarchs means "titular monarchs", they are also come under term "monarch". Some of examples given in that list are monarchs of princely states in India during British era. For example Osman Ali Khan. I think that this is an encyclopedic list, but needs improvement. Name can be moved to List of titular monarchs lost throne since 20th century or simply it can be List of titular monarchs since 20th century, because most of titular monarchs have lost their thrones by now, so no need to mention it in article name, one can mention it in lead. But this article needs editor desperate for history who can search modern history of all nations to find out such monarchs. For example India itself had over 500 titular monarchs during British era.--Human3015^TALK 21:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This list has a few problems but the criteria it is trying to adhere to are quite clear (provided, for instance, it is accepted that the monarchies being covered are as defined in Non-sovereign monarchy, or alternatively List of current constituent monarchs) and are pretty much in line with those we usually apply to list articles. While sources should ideally be in the article, we generally do not regard that as a fatal problem in a list article provided the entries link to articles which do supply the sources (that currently seems to be the case for some but not all entries).

The article could certainly do with some cleanup - removal of entries that can't be sourced (and sources added for those that can, particularly for redlinked entries), checking that the entries do conform with the desired definition (for instance, a few of the entries, such as Bohemia, are for subsidiary titles of the ruler of the controlling states rather than for separate subsidiary monarchs), and preferably a reorganisation of the article to group the various monarchies included under the states (or succession of states) whose sovereignty they accepted (the method of organisation that is being used both in Non-sovereign monarchy and List of current constituent monarchs). It would probably also be useful if the article distinguishes between cases where the individual monarch was deposed but replaced by another (or at least the monarchy was recognised as continuing by the relevant sovereign state) and cases where the relevant sovereign state effectively derecognised the subordinate monarchy (as in Germany in 1918 or India in 1971). But all of these are matters for normal editing.

Finally, while some of the monarchies defined as non-sovereign have effectively been titular, others have definitely been anything but - with either the subordinate monarchical state or the monarch personally constitutionally guaranteed often considerable autonomy. PWilkinson (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split (and change name) -- This is about hereditary rulers who were not sovereigns: they were not merely titular, but may often have been local rulers owing suzerainty to a higher ruler. However, this is a horrid mixture, which needs to be split: we have German rulers who were deposed on abdicated at the end of WWI, Nigerian chiefs, Indian maharajahs, etc. All ro some extent ruled their states, but subject to some kind of imperial oversight. However those that are redlinked should either be delinked or plain removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Move to Monarchs Who Lost Their Thrones etc., anyone who wants to know whether the "monarch" was sovereign or not can follow a link to an appropriate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:4002:CDD0:C0FB:310D:97E1:AA36 (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:38, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

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

This author's only claim to notability rests on two awards, covered only by a newspaper affiliated with the author (and nowhere else, as far as I can tell). Neither award appears to be notable; one is from a non-notable NGO, and the other is a "Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition" which seem to be handed out like candy by individual American congresscritters. Psychonaut (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the references which are independent of the subject. They may establish notability for his other works, other than the awards.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the removed references by the nominator which may support establishing the subject's notability based on independent, global and multiple coverage.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles which were removed by the nominator are, where the subject is quoted and not written by him.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six references I removed, four were written by Kanagasingam himself, and one is from his employer; these cannot be used to establish notability, and are overkill for establishing that the man is a writer. The remaining one refers to Kanagasingam only in passing. Here is the entirety of what it says about him: "Four years back, Sri Lankan Rajkumar Kanagasingam wrote about TAK's Sri Lanka connection in his book German Memories in Asia but couldn't meet the man. 'I got information and details through friends and sources he says.' [sic]" —Psychonaut (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that employer? What is your rationale for that? Even in Concordia University, his article is published referencing him; that is not a local newspaper you to remove it; that add weight to the criteria of Wikipedia multiple sources.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Daily News, the same paper many of his other articles appear in. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally wrong, a contributing writer never considered to be an employee of a news media.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The legal nature of the arrangement is irrelevant. The newspaper employs (or "pays" or "engages", if you prefer) Kanagasingam to write articles; that creates a conflict of interest in their reporting on him. Articles from Daily News and its sister publications are not reliable sources for Kanagasingam. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again. They don't employ them, they are free lance writers. There is no sister newspaper of Daily News sourced here. Daily Mirror and Daily FT are sister newspapers, still they may have different editorial control.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article before it was stripped of what was termed "refspam". I've looked at it, and "refspam" seems a fair enough description. Delete per nom; and, since an article on this person keeps reappearing, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you termed by "reappearing"; you are an administrator you should be more responsible when you respond something. After the article was created it was nominated for deletion, an the result was Keep and then it was renominated for deletion and the result was Delete. There after it is recreated nearly 8 and 1/2 years later that is now only.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what your rationale for your finding,".......and, since an article on this person keeps reappearing....". If it is a mistake, then it is OK, otherwise I will take this issue for RfC.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You voted "Delete" nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago on this subject's deletion discussion, and now too you voted "Delete"; what I could guess is your vote and your involvement in this deletion discussion process is more malicious than good faith.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article seems to have only once reappeared after deletion. ¶ You are very welcome to make guesses about the motives of other editors, for example, me. I frequently make such guesses myself. However, I rarely express them, for several reasons, one of which is that I doubt that anybody else would be interested. (There's also WP:AGF.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rectification. Your story on Guessing is interesting.(BTW: A while ago only I have seen my school days love interest's photos on a social media with whom I have reconnected a few months back; we lost each other by wrong guessing and apologized after 3 decades. Your story well related............, thanks).— Preceding unsigned comment added by UmakanthJaffna (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial awards, inadequate truly RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DGG also voted "Delete" nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago on this subject's deletion discussion. I am wondering when there are more than 10, 000 editors on English Wikipedia, what made those who have cast "Delete" votes already, so far turned up.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One might just as well ask what led to the sudden reappearance of this puffery-laden article on a largely unknown writer. Would you care to disclose whether you are or have any connection with Rajkumar Kanagasingam or those operating the confirmed and suspected sockpuppet accounts listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2008#User: JCC Friends, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rajsingam, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JCC Friends, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Borseter, and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2009#ideamarketers.com? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead people Spam Blacklist is on Idea Marketers and it belongs to Marnie Pehrson.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try reading the entire spam report instead of just the title. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read but your title is misleading. Don't mislead by the cover of the book.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Can you disclose that you are not canvassing votes or no affiliation with the geopolitics of this region directly or indirectly?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "No" a "No, I am not Rajkumar Kanagasingam nor anyone connected with him," or a "No, I don't want to disclose whether or not I am"? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not Rajkumar Kanagasingam. But I know him. Answer to my under mentioned questions first, I want to know what on earth you are so furious with the subject given the fact your unethical canvassing by spamming on others talk pages rather than listing the discussion appropriately.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now only I checked your contribution, you try to canvass votes spamming those who have involved in the last deletion discussion, that is unethical since that discussion has ended as Delete and your expectation is biased. You should have listed the deletion discussion under Sri Lanka or other relevant lists.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to WP:APPNOTE. If you believe that notifying all extant editors from the previous discussion is unethical, you are welcome to attempt to change the guideline by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the previous deletion discussion was nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago. What made you think still those editors' comments have value over the discussion?If so, why you haven't notified the editors who have participated another discussion just couple of months ago of that where the result was "Keep". Why you missed the discussion being listed appropriately? Please respond the following questions as well.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you disclose you have no affiliation with the geopolitics of this region directly or indirectly?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can you disclose whether you have any affiliation with the organizations, individuals or incidents directly or directly where the subject's articles or the book content might have adverse effect? Or have you edited any of the Wikipedia articles where the subject's articles or the book content might have adverse effect? if so can you disclose those.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone have any affiliation (direct or indirect) with the geopolitics of any region? On which organization, individual or incident might the subject's articles or the book content have an adverse effect? -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I asked from the nominator is whether he has any connection with organizations or individuals which have been affected by the articles written or the book authored by Rajkumar Kanagasingam?Also whether the nominator involved with any of the Wikipedia articles where the newspaper articles written by Rajkumar Kanagasingam are sourced and critical of those Wikipedia articles?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which organizations or individuals have been affected by articles or a book written by Rajkumar Kanagasingam? As for the use in en:Wikipedia of articles written by him, it's not obvious that there is any such use: the list of articles with links to the article on Rajkumar Kanagasingam had zero items when I looked at it less than five minutes ago. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be not there now, but it might have been there and being removed. But this question is to the nominator, not to you. Sorry.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Well, there's TripAdvisor, into which a small contingent of IPs and accounts have doggedly been attempting to insert references to Kanagasingam's articles since at least March of this year ([26] [27] [28] [29]). I suppose that UmakanthJaffna has known this all along, and was preparing to use my passing involvement in that article to attack my good faith in nominating this one for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Hoary has well responded on Guessing.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond the following since you haven't responded above;

The previous deletion discussion was nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago. What made you to think still those editors' comments have value over the discussion?If so, why you haven't notified the editors who have participated another discussion just couple of months ago of that where the result was "Keep". Why you missed the discussion being listed appropriately?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Agent 23 Skidoo[edit]

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

I simply see no better improvement here and if it wasn't for the claims, this could've easily been A7 and subsequently PROD as well and the best my searches found were this and this. Pinging the only still active past users Amatulic and Kinu as AwamerT and Thparkth are not much active. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined a speedy deletion nomination early in this article's history due to its claims of significance. Those claims remain unsourced, and the article includes a lot of name-dropping. The big question is, does this artist meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO? Clearly he doesn't meet #1 (coverage); the only coverage actually cited is an NPR piece that briefly quotes him, and the other claimed coverage is unsourced. But if the label "Happiness Records" is notable, he'd meet criterion #5. Having three #1 radio hits (also unsourced) might qualify for criterion #9 or #11. This bears further investigation, possibly something WP:ARS might want to take on. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be loads of links, but which are reliable I have no idea. ghytred talk 17:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 I would appreciate if you helped comment here for a balanced consensus. SwisterTwister talk 17:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a Grammy-nominated artist (see this). Gotten a bit of press at lots of niche music sites, as well as some reliable sources such as the Asheville NC paper, the Allentown, PA paper, and The Republic. The article is in poor shape right now, but this needs improvement, not deletion, in my opinion. Unsourced claims should be tagged or deleted, as this is a BLP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our music standards are rock-bottom and the most minor dubstep or hip-hop artist can defend an article here simply because their 4chan fanbase is vocal. Here's a real performer with a list of releases (actual round things that were pressed by a real label with tax returns, not just downloads by their mates) and who walked the carpet at this years Grammys. I'm not going to rush out and listen to this, but it does deserve its article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuala Mole[edit]

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

Questionably notable as there hasn't been much change and the best links I found was this and this so unless this can actually be better improved, there's not much to suggest keeping as it seems it may have been started by Nuala Mole herself (SPA author was "Londonlawyer"). Pinging tagger Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article itself sounds entirely self-promotional and seems to have been derived from Mole's bio on her organisation's webpage. As for notability, there is some content by her (she has authored some publications [30]) but not so much about her. Little evidence of notablility plus possible COI makes me think deletion is the better option. Yamamura Sadako (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blatherskite[edit]

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

Questionably notable as sure it may currently have some sources but I found nothing better with my best search links here and here and it's worth mentioning their official website is now closed and they often update their Facebook from time to time suggesting they have not been active or gotten much coverage for activity as it is. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has issued three albums, toured internationally, and are mentioned in non-trivial accounts found in various reliable, independent sources. Other points by SwisterTwister don't relate to notability: official website closed (I've supplied an archiveurl) and FB site (removed from EL as only one official website allowed).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The multiple albums are all self-released. The touring internationally one might be good though - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turn up hundreds of hits, but all on the underlying term, not the band. Current article's sources don't rise to the level where they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. They made some appearances at some festivals, but can find no evidence of major tours. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The band is not the primary meaning for the title and so, per WP:SOAP, should not benefit from this without more notability. Andrew D. (talk) 11:38, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vantrix[edit]

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

Questionably notable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and the article's current unsourced state is unacceptable and would need to be improved if actually kept. Likely the best way to take care of this was (and still is) tag it as speedy especially given its state, the author being Vantrix itself and no further improvement since then but I wanted comments for full consensus (especially for a future G4 if applicable). SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: The subject seems notable. However, I suggest WP:TNT. Mhhossein (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the nominator that the article is poor, but the subject appears to meet WP:CORP notability requirements, such as (in French) [31] (Business write-up in La Presse). The problems in the article's context probably warrants a rewrite, but should not be a reason to delete. -- R45 ^talk! 20:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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! 08:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and allow for possible reconstruction from scratch. The present article is so promotional in manner that I almost considered a G11. (But the fr reference cited seems adequately non-promotional to serve as a base for rewriting). Per WP:TNT, we should not keep and rewrite material of such low quality as this, but remove and start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pinging Onel5969 for hopes again to gain a clear consensus. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuala Mole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategiCom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D&D Media Group, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lounge Piranha (this one is especially close to a "no consensus") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Grocers Association. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and DGG. Sources did not show enough in-depth coverage to show they meet either [WP:GNG]] or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 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 and redirect to Man on Fire (2004 film). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ramos[edit]

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

I declined a BLP PROD as there are "sources" (I use the term loosely). This seems to be a candidate for removal, or merger to a list of competitors for the ANTM season. Obviously "all hotties are inherently notable", but this one does not appear to be. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment If this person is not notable, this could become a "disambig" page as "Lisa Ramos" is also the name of a character in a film, Man on Fire (2004 film) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regular cast member of Guy Code -- Qit16 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restart as a disambiguation page and link those two and I would've been bold with this but I'll simply put this for now and also say I'm willing to change it myself. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Man on Fire (2004 film) - Clearly this lovely lady isn't notable so a disambig page would be useless if her article's not wikilinked (Either way this'll get deleted!), and it's a plausible search term for the character in the film so it makes sense to delete & redirect, Don't see the point in preserving the history as she'll never be notable. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music Hour (Porno Graffitti song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Japanese wikipedia article ja:ミュージック・アワー states that the song peaked at #5 on the Oricon Singles Chart and stayed for 22 weeks. It also says that it went platinum and was featured in a Pocari Sweat commercial. The same article has some other information that could be added to this. This may be enough to pass WP:NSONG, but references are needed to confirm all this. Unfortunately the Oricon online database doesn't go back that far, neither does that of Record Industry Association of Japan [32]. Perhaps someone else knows better sources. Michitaro (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was, however, able to confirm that the song went gold when it was released for music download: [33]. Michitaro (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:24, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Giri[edit]

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

Biographical article for a person who does not meet the applicable notabilitaty criteria WP:PROF, nor WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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! 08:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Neither the unimpressive citation record nor his position as department head at a minor university are enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no article cited more than 27 times. Does not meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR as per limited participation here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Industrie Clothing[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this can be better improved as the best some of my searches found was this, this (this one has the most results with some news), this and this and although I haven't started looking closely at local news sources, this isn't very motivating and may have minimal local notability at best as one of the News links says they are a major company. Pinging past users Alexf, Randhirreddy and Takamaxa. It's worth noting this is what the article looked like when it started in May 2006 and this was once edited by an account "IndustrieClothing" in January 2013. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to David Jones Limited; this enterprise is now owned an operated as a division of that notable chain. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:23, 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. Unopposed request. Sandstein 09:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broke Protocol[edit]

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

Indie video game released this month (the claim that it was released in 2011 appears to be a typo). Little third-party coverage (though this is difficult to gauge, because search for the name of the game invariably returns "somebody broke protocol"). Article was created by the game's developer. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) I sorted out the nytimes.com and usatoday.com sources and still had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. (Page could have been moved to languish in draftspace, though.) If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ayer Keroh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garden of Thousand Flowers[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. public parks are not inherently notable. hardly any coverage in gnews in either English or under its Malay name. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ayer Keroh, which presently only mentions the park. This will serve to enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge or redirect to Ayer Keroh. A Google search fails to find any significant reliable coverage; the only page I could find which could count as significant coverage is a Blogspot link. However, since a merge target has been suggested, a merge or redirect would be preferable to outright deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stratus (US fusion jazz band)[edit]

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

Questionably notable as not much has changed (not that there may be much to change as this seems to have been a lowly active band) and the best my searches found were this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if User:AllyD caught this one as I've noticed they watch several jazz articles so they are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 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 Procedural Close. The article was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1967 American Football League draft, this is a nom for the talk page, I assume posted through a script error. If the article is deleted, the talk page goes boom too. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1967 American Football League draft[edit]

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

The topic of this article is more completely covered in the 1967 NFL draft article since the AFL and NFL drafts were combined in this year (as well as the subsequent 2 years). I would propose that this article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to 1967 NFL draft. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:10, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Stambowsky[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist, rank and who you trained with have no bearing on notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Notability is not inherited from teachers or obtained from rank.Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability claims seem to be based on who he knew and who his instructor was, but notability is not inherited. No indication he ever competed at the highest level (Olympics or world championships). He's not mentioned at judoinside.com or at the ibjjf.org website. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 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 keep. Those opining here seem to be of the mindset that there are indicia of notability though none here claim to be able to read the underlying sources. If further consideration reveals the assumptions here are incorrect, the article may be renominated without prejudice. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zamansky[edit]

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

I declined a BLP PROD as this has sources, but they do not appear to be independent. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has category named Category:Recipients of the Order of Honour (Russia). In quick search I did not find sources saying he was awarded Order of Honour (Russia). But maybe deep search is needed or maybe Russian language sources needed for that. If he was really awarded Order of Honour (Russia) and someone finds such sources then article should be kept. Other categories are Category:Recipients of the Order of the Patriotic War, 2nd class, Category:Recipients of the USSR State Prize. More search needed for these. If he got any of these awards then he is notable. Given sources are in Russian language. Maybe we need Russian expert. --Human3015^TALK 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this seems to have aspects of notability and acceptability. Pinging Onel5969 and Wikimandia. 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not "keep only if the sources are in English" Wikipedia. Good grief! Did you go to the Russian Wikipedia? Did you do WP:BEFORE? I do not speak Russian, but this document [34] clearly shows in google translate "he was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War II degree, Order of Glory III degree and the medal "For Courage";" it also shows that in 1988, film work by "Vladimir Zamansky was awarded the USSR State Prize", which the Russian Wikipedia states is a presidential decree and cites this document [35] as the source. I repeat, I don't speak Russian so can not confirm but AGF that it is what is claimed. The Russian Wikipedia also shows that his war record was looked up in a database here which is cited as evidence of his medal. The website states it is "a unique information resource open access "Feats of people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945". The file is also attached to articles in French, Ukrainian and Polish. This article from the Ukrainian site confirms his USSR state prize. This article [36] lists multiple awards as both an actor and a war veteran. Clearly notable. The fact that there were 4 wikis should have alerted you to look before you nominated. SusunW (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples artist of RFSR should make him notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdrew (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Hockett[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:academic. Normal career, some quotes, no particular positions or awards. Article created by COI who is doing articles for Cornell Law School faculty. Article contains original research, some peacock language (I removed some), and few third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra nominator LaMona's statement that "Does not meet wp:academic." He holds a named chair and therefore meets WP:PROF #5 --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I missed that subtle "grey on gray" under his name. I will add that to the article. This AfD can be withdrawn. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Dougherty (police officer)[edit]

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

James Dougherty was only notable for having been briefly married to Marilyn Monroe before she became famous. He gave several interviews to tabloids and wrote two books about the marriage, but these weren't bestsellers to my knowledge and are thought highly unreliable by MM's biographers. In addition, the article uses unreliable sources/original research and goes into far too much detail about a non-notable person. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Delete Agree he's not notable. The problem is that there are reliable sources like [37] in which you could claim it. I do think here you have to take into account tabloid fodder for somebody like Monroe and why the press might want to write about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for a separate article; his "15 minutes of fame" is covered in the main GA rated Monroe article with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he made the New York Times as a standalone obituary. - TX6785 (talk) 20:13, 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the verifiability problems identified in the nomination. Sandstein 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaidSafe[edit]

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

Almost entire based on primary sources.Almost entirely devoted to general principles of operation, which belong in general articles,and to unsourced claims that its particular methods solve some specific problems problems. Patents are not a satisfactory source here: they say what the product asserts to do, not what it actually does. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better than here and here. DGG This is what I would call "house cleaning", wouldn't you? SwisterTwister talk 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are a large number of articles on related bitcoin topics. I have doubts about the appropriateness of a good many of them. , but I do not want to get overly-incvolved in the area. As for house cleaning, I start with the worst articles or most conspicuous problems. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are retarded if you delete this... (random internet person that doesnt know how to edit wikipedia)

Keep I just did an internet search on Maidsafe and this article had what I was looking for (Mastercoin and bitcoin raise) it also educated me on some aspects about it I didn't know (that it was 10 years old and had raised 5MM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithd98 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, I agree that this article is not very good but I am planning to rewrite it as soon as I can make the time (sometime in November). Also, I think that the title of the article should be SAFE Network instead MaidSafe.

MaidSafe is the name of the company that has been developing the SAFE Network for the last 10 years. The SAFE Network is somewhat similar to other projects such as IPFS, but it also has some very unique aspects (e.g. it's consensus mechanism, the way its DHT is built, the way the files are encrypted and lot of more but I would have to take the time to explain it).

It was initially called the MaidSafe network, so that is why there is some confusion and why the article is currently named this way.

I made a simple landing page at safenetwork.org. Hopefully it shows that this is a real project. I would also encourage you to check the GitHub repositories to see that project is very active.

How should I proceed for making my changes? Is it okay if I create a new article from scratch? (which I would call SAFE Network) Will you keep the MaidSafe article in the meantime or will you delete it? Frabrunelle (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frabrunelle We can draft and userfy it to User:Frabrunelle/Sandbox for example. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Sounds good, I will make a draft in my sandbox! Frabrunelle (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the end of 2016 is it an article that can be put on Wikipedia? It has been really useful to know about this software and removing it was a bad move in my opinion. I think we can go forward recreating this article with the help of archive.org Anonymous 16:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.29.20 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buhl Farm Golf Course[edit]

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

Not notable public golf course. The claim to be the only free one in the US is not backed up by any non primary sources. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable - several references^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (see below) added recently to the "Buhl Farm Golf Course" article - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Saw in one of the sources mentioned already that it was previously known as Buhland Golf Course. Searching for that name also returns a few more, including this article from 1991 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.^[1] I removed some of the excess detail and think there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Searcy, Jay (September 21, 1991). "At The Duffer's Paradise, Every Day Is A Free-for-all". Philadelphia Media Network. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
^ Roknick, Michael (December 2, 2001). "Is free golf at park in jeopardy?". Sharon Herald. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
^ Ryan, Ryan (July 8, 2014). "Buhl Farm, Pennsylvania's only free public golf course, in danger of closing". PennLive.com. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
^ Barton, John (January 6, 2015). Book: The Golf Guru: Answers to Golf's Most Perplexing Questions. Retrieved October 22, 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 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. Despite the passionate comments and pleas from the Super 5 participants, it's clear this is perhaps a worthwhile program, but not one that should have its own encyclopedic article. The policy based arguments carry the day regarding WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super-5[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article does not cite any independent references and is written like a promotional advertisement When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now in any case as I see no obvious improvement. Hoping for a balanced consensus here so pinging Huon, Oscarthecat, SpacemanSpiff, AusLondonder, DGG, Yash! and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 15:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all Wiki Legends, It is my humble request to all legends to please look into this seriously and do not remove this page. There are several B.Tech/MCA candidates in India who are jobless and doing suicide due to no money. Super-5 is came in market with a social cause to provide excellence training and job without charging any kind of fees from the students. Last year I was looking for job everywhere and then heard about the Super-5. When I approached to Super-5 team then they assured me that they will not take any money just I need to prove my self on the selection rounds. I cracked the Super-5 screening rounds and then after training got selected in Globallogic MNC. This program will really change the thinking of every single engineer who is doing their B.Tech with the fear that whether they will get a job or not. Engineering colleges takes tons of money and create Engineers but they do not provide job or create professionals. Super-5 is converting those talented Engineers to excellent professionals. This article need WIKIPEDIA help so that we can stop suicide of Engineers and every person who is jobless can get to know about a place which gives excellence job oriented knowledge without taking any money. 21:02 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachans9 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Akash and currently part of Super5 batch. I have seen the zeal on eyes of Super5 team and the Countless efforts they are putting to make us perfect so that we can crack interviews and get a job. Everything is free there and these two were the main reason behind my joining in Super5 students list. I think everyone should know about it that in this world honesty and humanity still exist. Everyone should know that team of some peoples are working hard to make an Engineer to Professional without taking single penny. Wikipedia is the first source of everykind of info that is helpful for others so Super5 page should remain in Wikipedia always.

I am Trishna, presently a part of the super 5 batch. This is on behalf of all the 2lakh engineers in India who pass out every year with a doubtful mind that if they are going to get employed or not. This is a humble request to the wiki legends to stop the super 5 page from getting shut down. This isn’t a simple random page which we get to see every time we switch on the internet, it’s a ray of hope to all the passed out B.Tech students ,it’s an inspiration to me and to many more unemployed engineers who joint engineering to make a dream come true. A dream which is sure to come true with the efforts and hard work of all the mentors of super5.We seldom get to see people who devote their lives for the well being of others.Super5 is surely such a program which is helping jobless engineers with selfless motives to make a place in this globalising world. Dear wiki legends, this page of super5 might just be like any other page to you, and shutting this down might not create much of a difference to you, but to us, a lot of hope lies on super5 and we are looking forward for your contribution and preventing our dreams from getting shattered.

I am swranjali currently i am part of super-5 batch.I really feel proud to be a part of it because they provide me with great learning experience and help student to get a good career in the industry.They have dedicated their time and effort so that we can achieve our goals.I kindly request you to please do not remove this page so every peson who is jobless can get to know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swranjali yadav (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Supriya . I am very happy to be a part of super5. Super5 is the best platform to show our talents. Not just an institution like which they delivers knowledge and training. Apart from this what makes super5 unique from others with the dedication towards each students which makes everyone feel that we have come to the right place. It is a organization where you can enhance your skills. All trainers are very co-operative and outstanding. Please "don't delete this content" as it is helpfull for many student who are really talented but jobless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra supriya (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Soni Rai of Super-5. It is an institute where the professional delivers a knowledge, dedication and countless efforts towards us to make our carrier by shaping our knowledge. It doesn't mind about any single money. It does for making student carrier that he feel confident about themselves by enhancing their skills. Please don't delete content as it is beneficial to others who need a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soni Rai12 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sandeep Rathor today i am feeling proud because i am the part of super-5 Batch.They don't take any fees for that Because this a concept which is working on the Super-30. This is like dream come true. Because after completing my graduation and spending lots of bucks i did not get any job, that time Super-5 is a work like a ray hope. The only institute which is not focusing on filling their pockets but only focusing to inspire the talented students. And really help them to improving their professional skills and help to other unemployed and talented student to grab the jobs in big MNC. This article help to other talented and unemployed students to get know about this and help them to grow their skills. Please DO NOT DELETE THIS this is a ray of hope for talented and jobless students. PLEASE WIKI LEGENDS THINK about those. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE SUPER-5 PAGE

Delete - per nom. Searching turned up numerous references to super 5, discount stores, athletic leagues, etc. None to the subject of the article. And obviously none of the long pleas above hold any validity. John from Idegon (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned that there is not notable references so i am mentioning here a reference link and will request to keep that page in WIKI and give your blessings to Super5. http://jaago.indiaonline.in/Super-5-13511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachans9 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Searching on google-what shows up in google or what not is part of SEO. Whomsoever have invested alot are searchable in Google and in top place. IeQue's Super-5 is a concept of guaranteed job to jobless candidate without taking any penny is part of social cause. It seems those who have cracked/part of Super-5 have posted their soul voices which seems to be true and valid. Validity of written material is less important when those who are living beings are putting self examples so Wiki should not delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by g59.161.191.127 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have cleaned up the formatting while not changing one word of the priceless but pointless dialogue here. Sub headers are not used in AfD discussions. Of course reasonable arguements usually are, and none of this is. If you cannot be bothered to learn what is required to have an article on Wikipedia, Please do not post here. You are wasting everyone's time. John from Idegon (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real reference (IEQUE) doesn't mention Super-5 although it talks about a training program. The newly added "reference" is a blog post and sounds very much like some of the posts above. It would be great to have actual evidence that this program exists and to get some good references. Unfortunately, it is hard to search for since the term "Super-5" has been used in many contexts. However, the proponents have not even provided a link to a web page to show evidence that the program exists. LaMona (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It is really strange for me while reading above comments which says that I am wasting everyone's time. Its really feel bad when legends talk like this. Promotion of any program requires money investment. Neither Super-5 team is taking any money from candidates nor they are investing money on promotions. They are just spreading this using words of mouth. I am using Wiki since my childhood and for any kind of new or advance info I referred and believe on Wikipedia. Tell me whether everyone should know about this that there is a program in this world for those jobless candidates who are fighting with their selves to live properly without any money. I am in touch with Super-5 Mentors team, I have seen their efforts and hard work without having any personal benefits with this program. They are burning their lives for jobless candidates so that they can get a job and candidates lives can be saved. Is it bad to save lives? Is it bad to give or provide money support to jobless? Is it bad to help students to grab a job without taking any fees? We respect Wiki Rules and Regulation and really do not want to break Wiki rules, just we all are asking a favor and help from Wiki teams to support us so that this program can be reached to everyone who is jobless and out of money. Exceptions exist everywhere and we are requesting to Wiki Team to please give a chance to Super-5 team to be on WIKI. Below is the link of Super-5 program in IeQue. http://www.ieque.com/super-5

This page was added obviously to support the WP page, and says "This article need WIKIPEDIA help so that we can stop suicide of Engineers and every person who is jobless can get to know about a place which gives excellence job oriented knowledge without taking any money." Really, this is getting ridiculous. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Bunch of kids trying to get some attention for their group. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the right platform this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Hey this is Shitesh from Super-5 Mentor Team. I have seen the efforts my students are putting to keep alive this WikiPage. My respond to above comments is only that "whom you are referring to kids are B.Tech Pass out Engineers and they know well what they are doing".

Wiki CEO if you want to delete this page delete it. I and my Team has taken a step to help all those who are B.Tech Passout and jobless/Poor/Out of Money. We will keep doing this social cause and will not give any money to social media to promote this. We were just looking a support and help from WIKI team but if you can't help to those who are poor and jobless then its fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiteshS (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, as someone who hires and fires people all the time in the course of my real life work, the very first thing I look for is the ability to follow instructions. You might consider that your whining constrinations here are hurting your supposed cause of preventing suicide by finding jobs. I am going to ping an admin and ask for a mercy close of this discussion before you dig your hole any deeper. Pinging Kudpung, 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Lets delete this and help their objective by giving them time to find some useful job. Can't find anything substantial in WP:RS. Plus, such ballot box voting isn't really helping them prove notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont'Delete FB link (https://www.facebook.com/myieque) has several information about when Supr-5 started, about screening, when candidates were selected and what are their progress. Social media is considered as a primary source of promotion for Non Profit organization. This program hits 527 likes in last three months. When you will search "ieque super-5" in google then this is first link available there. Hope at this initial stage two reference links about the existence of this program will be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiteshS (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not notable. What a waste of time and effort do to SPA editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar Kapur[edit]

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

I started to tidy this article up and gave up about a third of the way through. The only independent reliable source is the Economic Times one, I can't find any other reliable sources mentioning him, definitely nothing that would meet WP:GNG. The article is also overly promotional in tone and written like a CV. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn It still needs more references but now that at lest some have been added and the promotional material removed I am happy to withdraw my nomination. Thank you Samuel J. Howard for cleaning up the article and finding the additional sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. an ambassador from India to two other countries is going to meet WP:GNG. See [38], [39], this Indian article calls him a "luminary" [40], [41], [42]. Presumably there are other sources in Hindi, Spanish, and Cambodian that I'm not equipped to access.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Not all of these are appropriate sources, but they help demonstrate that ambassadors get wide coverage.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the figure may meet GNG with two reliable sources. However, the article is very problematic as promotional and for lack of citations.--JumpLike23 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumplike23:I've cleaned it up and added some sourcing.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking more like a keep now. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors are not automatically notable, but are often notable anyway, especially when they come from major countries such as India. I think we now have enough reliable sources for notability, and the removal of the walls of unsourced text is a big improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 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 06:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Soj (singer)[edit]

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

No indication that the subject satisfies WP:NSINGER. Total of 50 hits for this name on Google – nearly all of them to the subject's own website, social media or other dubious sources. Note also that there have been repeated attempts to get this biography onto Wikipedia – see Clement Soj. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply still see no convincingly better improvement. Pinging Wikicology. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:25, 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. Sandstein 13:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Allure Russia cover models[edit]

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

No indication why this is a notable subject. Allure Russia doesn't even have its own article. Fram (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything obvious go suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there a special category of listcruft for lists which are created to make other articles look more important? If so, this. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 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! 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Razavi[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Of the two references in the article the Whats up Iran reference doesn't seem reliable, and the NY Times references doesn't mention him. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, or anything to show that it meets WP:NACTOR. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep nothing wrong with this article. --clay 10:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.99.14 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be another subject with the same name who is a professor in the King's College, London. I could find multiple mentions of that professor, but I found nothing about the subject of the article who claims to be an actor. No source at all for the actor, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Jim Carter 13:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing currently (at least English anyway) to suggest better improvement and can be restarted later if better. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Clay. AoorwHead (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — AoorwHead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. fa:رضا رضوی, the article in the Persian Wikipedia on the same subject doesn't provide any better, reliable sources; nor did I find anything in my attempt at a quick search of the name of the actor in the characters of that language.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh stub. Re-list? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If people think that helps... Sandstein 10:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on search engines show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Keep votes offer no basis in policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anvar Boynazarov[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable kickboxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Nothing in the article shows he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers and the article also fails to show any significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osklen[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I am also not seeing any RS in Google/Google News. Prior AfD had participants noting that the company is known in Brazil, but nobody provided a single reliable source... yet. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not trying to be WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but I'm Brazilian and I've never heard of them (~~maybe because I'm not rich~~). Jokes aside, I don't question the company's notability, but, c'mon, just look at this page. "Osklen is a Brazilian fashion brand based on harmonization of contrasts, in which urban and nature, organic and technological live together"; "Osklen makes clothes for people who identify with the lifestyle offered by the brand" - such sentences in an encyclopedic entry? Really? Can't even understand how it actually survived its first nomination. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at least as I'm not seeing much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 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. Sandstein 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardot[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The prior AfD is a sad case of amateur reviewers declaring notability based on not understanding the difference between a reliable source and press releases (which is what one person cited in abundance, impressing the second, while the third deemed the company's existence in Google search sufficient). Sigh. As for me, I don't see anything but press releases, and mentions in passing, primarily in the marketing trade journals walled garden anyway. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ExactTarget and simply delete this current article as I see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom's excellent assessment. Nothing in searches to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 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. Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Jalali[edit]

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

It seems promotional (it doesn't meet WP:N). Deleted in Persian Wikipedia long time ago. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sources, few passing mentions in USA Today is at best WP:ONEEVENT - he might be mentioned in the village article, perhaps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 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! 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emigre magazine issues[edit]

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

A detailed list of issues of a somewhat but not terribly notable magazine (it's not the New Yorker or some such) is serious overkill. No notability for this list. Fram (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability Matt14451 (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 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. Sandstein 13:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderhood[edit]

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

No claims of notability. No evidence of passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG. All sources are primary. Article mostly edited by User:Jagadeesh Rampam and User:Wilderhoodcontact who have very few edits outside this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:58, 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! 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Swan Country Club[edit]

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

Can't find anything notable about this club in RS. It claims to be the first country club in Mumbai and given that the elites are mostly well covered in Page 3 gossip columns, it should not be so difficult to verify the claim, unless its false. Found only this in a newspaper which also reflects nothing notable about the club but just a reporting of court news. Also note the article has been edited by User:Golden Swan Country Club. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much better. SwisterTwister talk 15:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 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! 22:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Ali Khan[edit]

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

Not notable Ntb613 (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't inherited (only claims are of being a relative of others who have bluelinks). DMacks (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so what if he was "father" or "uncle" of notable people. He himself is not notable at all. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The guy seems to be a recipient of a high award (see the template in the article), however, we need some sources to prove that.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 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 Thomas & Friends (series 2)#Episodes. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, Percy and the Coal[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources (other than standard plot summaries). Not notable. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas & Friends (series 2)#Episodes Textbook kidvid cruft that certainly didn't shake the world by any means. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Mrschimpf. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 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! 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Sudol[edit]

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

Likely even speedy and PROD material as there's simply not much and the best my searches found were some of the same listed links here and this simply has not changed much since starting in August 2011. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – article seriously lacks WP:RS to meet notability (own website, blog posts). Forbes has an interview, which falls under promotional rather than notability. Lots of positive comments about him/school/book, none which meet RS. Want to say keep but cannot justify my opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:00, 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! 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't call an interview "promotional," especially in Forbes. More like, a self-published source since he is the one stating the information. However, no matter what you want to call it, I don't consider interviews in depth enough to establish notability. I also cannot locate anything else that would satisfy WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The refs currently in the article are all either not reliable or primary sources. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 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 redirect to The Free Lance–Star. Consensus was redirect. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It! and Myline[edit]

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

Fails gng John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Free Lance–Star. Many papers have youth sections, may be a valid search term and a redirect to the paper would be fitting, but certainly is not WP:GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:28, 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! 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned as this seems obvious. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Free Lance–Star. I could find no mention outside of The Free Lance-Star. Jacona (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator has no problem with redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 20:20, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington track and field[edit]

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

One sports team from a high school? Nothing to indicate notability.No need to redirect, Altho some of the content would be appropriate to add to the stub article on the school this team represents John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable at all. JTtheOG (talk) 22:44, 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! 02:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberhero[edit]

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

Seems like original research by someone around a certain topic. Aha... (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good deal of coverage in secondary sources, including by scholars in academic journals. Several can be seen at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 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! 02:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concept of cyberhero is backed up by secondary sources, as noted. ABF99 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. At best this article is a stub, but it is very new. It is useful to compare this article to the article for Hero's journey - if this article could go in that direction it will be very worth keeping. Eventually the concept should also be linked to Hero. LaMona (talk) 06:29, 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 no consensus. Please consider alternatives to deletion such as merging or renaming/refocusing. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of attractions and landmarks in Stirling, Alberta[edit]

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

This list is largely filled with attractions, landmarks and events that are not notable, lacking significant coverage beyond the local area, and therefore not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It appears to be a vehicle for promoting tourism in this very small community. WP:NOTDIR applies. Also, though there is no minimum population requirement, a list of this nature for a village of barely 1,000 residents is unprecedented on Wikipedia. Compare it with the others in Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city. There are over 100 urban communities in Alberta that are more populous than this one without similar sub-articles. Only Alberta's two largest cities, Calgary and Edmonton, have equivalents. Entries that truly do meet WP:GNG can be merged into Stirling, Alberta. Perhaps lists like this are more appropriate for the sister project, WikiVoyage. Hwy43 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above amended by nominator (in italics) on Oct-8. Hwy43 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A List of historic places in Stirling, Alberta could potentially be a legitimate thing, if the individual buildings listed have any specific and properly sourceable historic designation — there's no minimum population size criterion on that type of list, but merely a "there are enough things to list" criterion. But if you're adding random and subjectively-chosen and not especially historic entries like miniputt courses and information kiosks and fish ponds and restaurants and community BBQ festivals, then indeed you're crossing the line that separates an appropriately encyclopedic list of notable things from an indiscriminate tourism directory. The fact that the town has a heritage designation does not mean that we need to maintain a list of every single individual thing that exists in that town, if some or most of those things have nothing to do with why the town has that status. If there are enough buildings or sites in the town with actual designated historic status in their own right, then move this to List of historic places in Stirling, Alberta, retaining only the designated entries and stripping anything else — but if there's only a low-single-digits number of such sites, then just list them in List of historic places in Alberta and Stirling, Alberta and delete this. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 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 00:29, 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! 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This locality is recognised as a National Historic Site and so its features are of special interest. Consideration of particular entries and the structuring of the information are matters for ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 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! 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Seton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. If you ignore the artists own website, bios, press release in the broadsheet source, there's no depth of coverage to support notability Flat Out (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage of Seton in the Sydney Morning Herald and Art Monthly Australia. His gallery is doing its artists no favours by creating conflict of interest articles though. -- haminoon (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A strange article indeed. First, it tells us that Through this juxtaposition of hard and soft; permanent and impermanent, the artist also investigates the history of marble as a monumental medium. I wondered how juxtaposing any contrast in one's own sculpture could be a way of investigating the history of anything. So I clicked on the ostensible source, and there read: Seton decided to explore traditional stone carving as an avenue for expression. “... [Marble] has this monumental history; it goes back to empire, kings and queens...." No investigation here. Secondly, the biographee's website is a major source. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Can't find substantial coverage from independent sources to show they currently meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 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! 02:27, 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! 22:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Hands[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because of the commonality of the name, research is difficult. This is an upcoming film with no sources. I might have missed them because of the search difficulty, but based on what I could see, does not meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refining the search:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary delete or userfy until more sourcing becomes available. While it IS sourcable as filming, the topic lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to at this time meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3)... while this may change, for now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new contributor/author Klement.actor: If you are actually actor Klement Tinaj, please read WP:NAU, and know that under WP:COI you should really refrain from writing about topics with which you have a too close or vested interest. Anything else... fine. Your own film projects, no. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Doin'?[edit]

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

I've tired to find really any reliable sources on this, and I haven't really come across much. Just don't think this had lasting notability Penale52 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. I've never heard of it, and sources are minimal at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere or where ever it is currently mentioned or simply delete for now (draft and userfy if needed as always) as it's not easy to see as it has a lot of linking articles because of the template and a few searches showed there's not much sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honesty don't know where this would possibly be redirected to. None of the linked articles on the page would be appropriate, and it's not like this song is about a specific year or moment, just late 90's Yankees. The only possible redirect would be the Yankees page itself, which I think would be ridiculous. Many fan-made songs have been written about sports teams, and many, like this one I believe, have no significant coverage. Penale52 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - agreed the subject is not notable or earth-shattering in its importance, but it did exist for a couple of seasons, and merited at least one mention in Gotham newspapers. I see no reason to delete it.--Spray787 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 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! 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found passing mentions in two reliable sources (This NY Times article, and An Offer We Can't Refuse: The Mafia in the Mind of America, pg 377, George De Stefano, ISBN 9780865479623 ) but I don't think there is anything significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent sources on the searches. Would say redirect to Yankees sports anthems, if there were such a page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 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.

[PH-19910921-1] Searcy, Jay (September 21, 1991). "At The Duffer's Paradise, Every Day Is A Free-for-all". Philadelphia Media Network. Retrieved October 22, 2015.

[SH-20011202-2] Roknick, Michael (December 2, 2001). "Is free golf at park in jeopardy?". Sharon Herald. Retrieved October 22, 2015.

[PL-20140708-3] Ryan, Ryan (July 8, 2014). "Buhl Farm, Pennsylvania's only free public golf course, in danger of closing". PennLive.com. Retrieved October 22, 2015.

[GG-Book-4] Barton, John (January 6, 2015). Book: The Golf Guru: Answers to Golf's Most Perplexing Questions. Retrieved October 22, 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]