Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic regions of Canada

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

The "economic regions of Canada" are not a notable thing in their own right — they are, rather, an internal Statistics Canada mechanism used solely for aggregating employment statistics for various Canadian markets. And the only sourcing that exists for this list, further, is a Statistics Canada web page which doesn't even actually define what any of the regions are, but just lists them and then gives a general boilerplate "For census subdivisions: See: StatsCan website. For localities: See: StatsCan website." description under each and every last one of them — which means even the sourcing isn't actually helping anything or anyone. In effect, that just makes this a pointless list of things that will never actually have separate articles of their own — but Wikipedia does not exist as a venue for publishing lists of non-notable things. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a Stats Canada classification that nobody else seems to use. There are scattered mentions of Canadian economic regions, but they're rather generic and have no connection to this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable list. -- R45 ^talk! 20:24, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lareal Watt

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

Individual notable for only one event, not passing WP:BLP1E. Initial contributor, Philmonte101, is definitely a good-faith editor and I would request that all input be positive and constructive. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is that the article should be kept. I think the subject is interesting and there are 3 references; I could really do more references to arrest archives. Is it even possible to keep the article? The research I did was honestly simple, since there are little resources out there. I feel like Wikipedia is a sum of research, and this is definitely the sum of my research on the knucklehead. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)--Formatting to standard AfD !vote structure. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I seriously considered adding {{db-attack}} to the page and would endorse others if they do the same. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of criminals. Yes, we have notorious criminals and we have people who were notable in their own right before before committing crimes but the vast majority of criminals fail WP:N. When it comes to determining the notability of a criminal, the kinds of sources matter: Those which routinely report all crimes of a given type or all crimes in a given geographic location or all crimes which fit a certain profile are generally treated much the same way as "business directory listings" are - they don't carry much weight. There is also WP:ONEEVENT, which generally means criminals who have only received press coverage for a single crime or crime spree don't qualify for their own article, but the underlying crime or crime spree might if it met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as well. The subject definitely fails WP:CRIME. Borderline WP:CSD#G10. Having this article makes me seriously uncomfortable. –Grondemar 04:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:BLPCRIME and is a borderline attack page. This is basically a biography of one arrest of interest to the local news media. Even if this person is convicted, the alleged crime is fairly ordinary. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:BLPCRIME, which can be overridden in the case of an incident that becomes notorious. this didn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPCRIME, Probably not as bad as the weird shite you see on mens toilet doors here in the UK!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 13 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) sst ✈ 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Papers

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded after a reference showing an in-passing mention was added. PROD reason still stands, hence: *Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books shows that the journal easily passes WP:NJournals #2. Also, the reference referred to above is more than simply an "in-passing mention", and probably indicates that it passes #1 as well. Worldcat shows holdings in 600 libraries. St Anselm (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to WP:NJOURNAL #1, an independent reliable source needs to reach that conclusion, or the evidence needs to be overwhelming. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability.Zaalim (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous citations in Google Books (as above) - if being heavily cited in the academic and scholarly literature is not enough to make a journal notable then what is! Do we have to have a 3rd party source which says "Priscilla Papers is a notable journal" somewhere. Nonsense! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - use the "Scholar" option from the "Find sources" element above and you get lots of such citations etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others said, it's easily found in Google Book searches, and I just did a Worldcat search on it and found it held in over 600 locations near me. Easily passes WP:NJournals #2 at least. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The library holdings don't say much (apart from the fact that WorldCat is quite unreliable): the journal is open access (delayed, but still), meaning that many libraries will list it as an "Internet resource" because it doesn't cost anything. As for the GBooks searches, did you really see anything substantial (as opposed to some hits)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 11 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaban Ali Khan

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

Non-notable, run of the mill businessman. PRODed by Wgolf on 25 March 2014 as unsourced BLP, de-PRODed by IP editor after adding the text "Nawroj Ali Khan, his nephew. His son , Muhammad Ali Khan's youngest son" at the end (possibly intended as some kind of reference; subsequently removed). Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and ProQuest turned up nothing more substantive about this Jaban Ali Khan than wiki-mirrors and directory-type listings, so does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should really have gone as a result of the BLP Prod process in March 2014, but the notice was removed by an IP. [1] AllyD (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are finding only mirrors of the same text and nothing of substance that could support the article. (A couple of news pieces mention "the late Jaban Ali Khan" in the context of police detention but these appear to be about someone else.) Fails biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non, per AllyD. Should have been PRODed. --nafSadh did say 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better with my best search links here but that may be for someone else. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 9 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasan M Sadeq

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

WP:BLP of an academic, which makes a potentially valid claim of notability but fails to properly source it. The only reference anywhere in the entire article is not media coverage of him, but a PDF of a conference presentation by him — making it an invalid primary source right off the top, before you even take into account the fact that it while it verifies his existence it fails to actually confirm the information it's footnoting. There's also a lot of subjective and unencyclopedic language in here — the fact that his mother "would help all her neighbours", while lovely as it goes, has nothing to do with whether he belongs in an encyclopedia or not — which makes it remarkably unsurprising that the article was created by someone with "AUB" in their username (check again the name of the university the article subject is a faculty member at, and refer directly to WP:COI.) While he might be eligible to keep a Wikipedia article that was written and sourced properly, he doesn't get to keep this. Delete unless proper sourceability in reliable sources can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper inline citations to reliable sources are added.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Now, this article only serves as a CV. Further, in my evaluation, WP:ACADEMIC doesn't necessarily hold. Only criteria that may apply for him is 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. However, per note, the institute has to be major and significant. Asian University of Bangladesh only has minimal significance to warrant an article for its own, but not for its vice-chancellor(s). --nafSadh did say 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom and nafSadh sum it up well. A vice chancellor, but at an ordinary, commonplace university. AUB is in no way a major or significant institution of higher education and research, so he does not meet criterion 6 of the professor test. Furthermore, searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR turn up only an occassional passing mention (e.g. "was in attendance"), and a handful of articles he has authored with a small handful of citations of them. There is little verifiable information available, and nothing important to say about the subject, so a stand alone article is not warranted. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 10 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 Playtime Is Over (mixtape). Both this and the non disambiguated title will be fully protected. Whether to delete the underlying article is therefore meaningless. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song)

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

PROD was removed by creator. Non-notable song from an early Nicki Minaj mixtape. Holds no significance or notability above the other tracks from the tape. Note: The article was originally speedily deleted under a different name (Wuchoo Know) three times, and once under its current name if that makes any difference. Azealia911 _talk 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no chart history for the song and it simply does not meet guidelines as a single requires its own notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and CNMall41. Doesn't seem to have any significant coverage by reliable sources, article doesn't establish notability. Melonkelon (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but create a redirect at Wuchoo Know to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). It's not an unreasonable redirect without the qualifier. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree about keeping a redirect. Makes sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect at Wuchoo Know. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the 5th creation, always by LilDennie Wikipedia, despite any warning and a block in September. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). I see no source that the song was even a single. But to be fair, everyone, an article doesn't have to be deleted before it is redirected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment on articles not needing to be deleted before redirection, however it can't hurt, and may prevent restoration of the article by its creator (whom removed the AfD tag from the atticle 5 times). Azealia911 _talk 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt has been repeatedly deleted for failing WP:NSONGS and is unlikely to become notable in the future Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt and then Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape) all in that order :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 13 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 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuraa Bhattacharya

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

It isn't clear that she qualifies for A7 speedy deletion but I can't find anything of substance about her under either of her names as written in Roman letters, and nothing but this article and three pages from the same lyrics site under her name as written in Bengali. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSICIAN. All of the sources given are affiliated or are other Wikipedia articles. On top of that, the entire article is written from a fan's point of view. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "written from a fan's point of view" is something that can be corrected and is no reason for deletion. However, failure to meet notability guidelines is. I found a few references such as these passing mentions [2], [3], & [4] so there is more than just mirror sites. I am not sure if there is a name issue as the article states she changed her name in 2013. I guess I will wait and see if someone has any better luck finding more in depth sources prior to casting a !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, despite several warnings and G11 speedy deletions, the same contributor keeps recreating the article, under variations of the title, with the same promotional wording. I see no option but to delete. Deb (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the listed sources are instantly signs this may not be improvable material and so if there is none, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 15 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Huang

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the article on mophie a while ago but unfortunately I do not see enough for Huang to have his own article. I cannot locate anything in depth that would satisfy WP:GNG. The best article out there is the Forbes article, but it is about the company and only dedicates a small amount of wording to Huang. I also isolated searching for his name and the other companies mentioned and also came up with nothing in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I particularly found links at News immediately, there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 11 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galit Hasan-Rokem

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

Do not believe the subject of this unsourced BLP meets PROF or any other notability guideline. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes ACADEMIC because she had held a named chair, the Max and Margareth Grunwald Professor of Folklore at the Hebrew University in Jerulaem and was the Head of the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While the article as it exists in the English Wikipedia would be a mere Keep, the corresponding Hebrew Wikipedia article passes the our notability guidelines with flying colors. Let's see this article expanded using the material and sources available there, in addition to those readily available in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have added sources to prove notability from reliable sites, including her biographical listing in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Folklore and Traditions. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I am withdrawing my nomination J04n(talk page) 00:07, 8 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 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Systems

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

just a catalog of their products DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company meets WP:GNG and previously publicly traded before being acquired. Here are some references [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are a ton of brief mentions which can help fill out content in the article in order to make it more than just a list of projects. If the article is kept, I am more than willing to do the article cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep company was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2007 and 2011 before being bought out, so it has quite a bit of coverage especially during that period [9] [10] [11]. The article is poorly written but shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- R45 ^talk! 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not well-sourced at all, but notability and such attach to the topic of the article, not the article as it is now. As WP:NPOSSIBLE reminds us: "The absence of citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable. " This was/is a public company with a ton of editorially independent discussion about it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company is notable, secondary reliable sources regarding the company have been produced (see above), and it passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. I agree that the article is not great, but this is completely irrelevant in the AFD process. I would take some time and brush up on WP:N WP:V, and WP:AFD before nominating more articles - this article is a clear 'Keep'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made some edits to the page to improve some of the issues mentioned here. mikeman67 (talk) 15:55, 13 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, !votes are all neutral or keeps. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick Mons

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

There is just one reference and this one reference doesn't say that the geological feature is called Kubrick Mons. This article has to be deleted. Huritisho 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was planning on saying "no opinion", but if your reason for deletion is that there are insufficient sources, then you should add better sources per WP:BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that the source doesn't even say the geological feature is called kubrik mons. It would also violate the notability requirement Huritisho 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are adequate sources available for a stub. Seems intuitively clear that the feature is not going away and people will continue to want to know about it. The name is "informal" for now, perhaps, but that's OK — if it gets a different, more official name, we can always move the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't even say it is called kubrik mons Huritisho 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one does. So do several others that you can find just by clicking the link that was automatically added by the {{find sources}} template. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility of moving it to Charon (moon)#Geology Huritisho 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, adequate sources exist for a stub, and the feature is intuitively notable. I'm sticking with keep. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, now tending weak keep. Trovatore has found a source showing that the moat mountain is indeed called Kubrick Mons, informally. This also says it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to cancel this darn nomination I started. Huritisho 19:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Speas

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines for academics. I did not find any notable fellowships, any notable posts at a university or at a journal, or any major impactful work that has met the guidelines. However, I could be wrong! (And I always hope I am!) Missvain (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meets many of the notability guidelines. All this information is found on the page. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - Her work on Navajo has definitely made a significant impact, her founding of the Navajo Language Academy reflects this. 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - Her coauthored textbook on Navajo is the official Navajo textbook of the state of Arizona. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - Her non academic work with the Navajo Language Academy attests to this. Hauserivy (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Concur with Hauserivy. Sources on file already denote significant contributions to cultural preservation as well as language. SusunW (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Hauserivy and SusunW. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Author of a widely-used text book. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and I've added more references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak

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

No evidence of notability at all, no Google results for the title combined with "Bernie Jamon" except this page and one other WP page that logs speedy deletion candidates. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: without sources, it's impossible to know this is even real. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

title:(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)

Delete for (at kindest) being waaaaaaay TOO SOON. It was easy enough to take the nominated stub and correct its format per MOS:FILM. The filmmaker and his lead actor appear to be real, but the project itself has no coverage. LAcking coverage, itfails WP:NF. If it ever gets coverage, the topic might be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No WP:RS, possible hoax.--RioHondo (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a pretty blatant hoax. Initially I was going to just say that this was likely a hoax given that the lead actor is fairly well known and is pretty regularly covered in English language websites (or English searchable websites) and there's no mention of this film anywhere. However a look at the editor's talk page shows that he tried to create a similar article there for a film released in 2025 that's based on a book by the same name as this film. Given that there are no sources out there and it's highly unlikely that there would be no coverage in English for one of Cruz's new roles plus we have content on the user's talk page that gives off the strong impression that this is a hoax, I have to assume that the quacking here means that this is a WP:DUCK. I do think that there is someone by the name of Bernie Jamon, but I think that this is more a young adult or child creating an article for their dream film they want to make one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 8 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Balkin

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

Not notable and Promotional -- see the COIN Noticeboard [12]. his book is minor: only 40 copies in libraries, which is utterly trivial for popular works on finance. There is no other notability. We don't include articles even for actual unelected candidates for office--certainly not for those who just considered running. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He seems marginally notable. Marginally. His wealthy father was a director at McKinsey, won the Order of Australia, and doesn't have an article. The son is less notable; he's been loosely associated with important people and events, but hasn't done anything notable himself. His career high point seems to have been one TEDx talk. John Nagle (talk) 17:48, 7 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 List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M. Sandstein 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machinson Sisters

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

I'm not entirely convinced if they existed and if they actually existed, they were not well known and there are no good sources as the best I found was this. Inviting TheGGoose and Calamondin12 and also notifying author Infrogmation. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit of coverage here but I can't read the whole book, only use the Google Books preview feature. Other than that I couldn't find anything that looked reliable. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like they existed: see this "antique chromolithograph print" complete with kittens in the crotches. I will go with Delete, as these sisters were a copycat act (pun intended) of the Barrison sisters. They both had the same "would you like to see my pussy" routine. I sense that I could go on and have a pun or double-entendre in every sentence, but I will stop now.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M. They existed, and redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M as a plausible search term. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [13]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 16 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slammed (play)

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

Article is essentially a very long plot summary without any references or suggestions of significance/notability. Nsteffel (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and it's interesting to note that there is a published mirror book at Books. Notifying taggers Jaguar and Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 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 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely

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

Fails pirnbio and gng. Nominations don't count Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently expanded the article under consideration here. The subject here has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - namely the film Eve's Secret & the reality TV show Jenna's American Sex Star. Also, the subject here has been a mainstream model for American Apparel and has "had significant roles in multiple notable films & television shows" (as basically already stated above). Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points on your vote Guy. Firstly The film (Eve's Secret) is according to its article a made-for cable erotic film. To me that's not mainstream and not significant and I note that there is no evidence that the film is itself notable. I have therefore listed it for discussion at AFD. Secondly, I don't believe that taking part in a reality show counts as featured and again there should really be critical discussion of her performance to lift this into the required zone for PB#3. I'm not sure why you are citing ENT as that does not apply to porn performers by long precedence.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant standard in PORNBIO is "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which means that there needs to be more than one featured appearance (in the film in question here, Ms. Stokely starred as the title character "Eve", and Ms. Stokely was one of the contestants on the reality show in question here) and that the type of media needs to be notable (which basically means that it needs to have its own Wikipedia article) and mainstream (of which both Cinemax and Playboy TV are considered, IMO, to be mainstream media).

Subjects of Wikipedia articles can obviously be evaluated under many different inclusion guidelines, and the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model in the past. Therefore, she can be evaluated under the NMODEL standard, which (in this case) is very similar to the relevant PORNBIO standard anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Sources please? Or is just another made up vote from you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Softcore erotica is not "mainstream" work, per established practice. The American Apparel-related coverage includes no significant content regarded the article subject herself, mainly passing mentions and unverifiable self-sourced claims, and would justify no more than a delete-and-redirect to the subsection of the American Apparel article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There do not appear to be any significant "unverifiable self-sourced claims" in the article under question here at this late date. The fact that the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model for American Apparel in the past is well-established at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and that does not make her notable unless someone has written about her modelling for them in RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business ia self-sourced and unverified -- more accurately, her two entirely different and irreconcilable accounts, both referenced in the article. Her version of her hiring by American Apparel falls into the same category. Right now, all the biographical info in the article is as likely to be kayfabe, if not fabrication, as it is to be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business"...is, in a word, unimportant. It's also neither unusual nor notable at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies that prohibit the use of self-sourced information in Wikipedia articles, especially for completely non-controversial or non-notable information.

Again, that "Stokely has modeled for several American Apparel advertisements" is an established fact, beyond any reasonable doubt. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requires the use of high-quality, reliable sources. An article subject who tells thoroughly incompatible, unverifiable stories about her own professional career simply isn't a reliable source. The fact that's she's appeared in a few advertisements may be an established fact, but it's far, far below the standard required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy1890. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:37, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul "RJ" Jain

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

Fails WP:GNG - several of the sources appear to be Press releases or PR-type sources, or not discussing him. Mdann52 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest better and the coverage seems to be the same such as this so there isn't anything lasting to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:36, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Marin

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please note: es:Giorgia Marin, id:Giorgia Marin, it:Giorgia Marin (her home country) and nl:Giorgia Marin. ErikvanB (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect to her one film although the latter often causes trouble with independent notability for a separate article and such so either will be good. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Community Foundation

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

Basically this could've been tagged as G11 but given its age (August 2007) and almost all edits apparently being the group themselves, I wanted comments. This is an excellent and I found results here, here, here and here (this last one, see some of the first results saying it is Florida's largest community foundation with about $1 million in assets but I'm not sure if this can be improved; I even improved fellow Florida-based Amigos For Kids and that looked better). SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. quality sources lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 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. Any other articles than the originally nominated one must be nominated seperately Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Global DMC

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

I considered speedying this especially considering what it looked like before here but given its age and amount of low edits, I wanted comments; the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. NOTE: I' also nominating another European company Lestra for which I'm not sure is fully notable, the French Wiki has some more info but not convincingly much and the best my searches was this and this (I searched Newspapers Archive and found nothing so the only chance of good coverage is archived French media). Notifying Lestra past editors (July 2009) Theroadislong and Falcon8765. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lots of press release and trade magazine coverage but couldn't come up with anything in RS; fails WP:CORP. Vrac (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @SwisterTwister: maybe it would be better to have a separate AFD for Lestra; since it is an unrelated company and has some coverage it would be cleaner to be able to separate the votes. Vrac (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion for Ovation , but the other article needs renominating. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Simply for curiosity though, what would you thoughts of Lestra be? I would also appreciate if you'd comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey W. Schroeder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Nazemson which have gotten low voting attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 10 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hilliard

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

WP:BLP1E of an accident survivor, which demonstrates no sustained notability outside the context of that accident itself. If her incident had documentably led to a major advance in medical science, then there might be a case to be made that she warrants an article for it — but if the sum total of its enduring impact is that she awoke from a coma 49 days later, the end, then that's just not enough to warrant permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We look for continuing coverage two of the reliable sources posted are from 2015 showing the subject has been covered for 3 decades. Also sources describe the case as a miracle. The uniqueness of the case lends itself to notability. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Miracle" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — it's an inherently unverifiable and non-neutral assertion. And the fact that one or two human interest stories might look back on something that happened 35 years ago does not demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a sustained way "for three decades", if you can't find any sources that are dated anywhere between 1981 and 2015. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is clearly verifiable by reliable sources. Here is a book source from 2002 [14] and another medical source from 1983 [15]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe weak keep simply because this seems interesting and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as unique case discussed in-depth as the singular focus of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:33, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christensen (snowboarder)

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better improvement with these links being my best search results and this article has existed since December 2008 and started by a "Etren" (somewhat suspect this is the subject himself). Notifying past taggers Zanimum and Dawn Bard. NOTE: I'm also nominating another sports bio Phil Shao who although seemed to have gotten a fair amount of coverage locally especially for the memorial park (see my best results here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if there's enough for a separate article and at best should be briefly mentioned at the Redwood City, California article. This article has existed since May 2006 and has hardly changed since then. Notifying author Nocarsgo and past editor Jason Quinn. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in 2008 I tagged it with the {{notability}} tag, so yeah, even then I agreed with deletion. Amazed that it lasted so long. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits in this only involved two cleanup edits to the Phil Shao article. I have no idea why I was singled out from among the other editors to that page. I have no personal interest in either article. I'm not sure these two deletions should be bundled however. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources other than youtube--failing GNG.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:58, 4 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, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other comment. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:27, 8 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 Fatally flawed. This AFD was a mistake from the start, nominating two subjects with no apparent connection at all. Reboot this as two AFD's if desired, but this one is so flawed from the start that it cannot reach a consensus to do anything. Courcelles (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethan Nia

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

My multiple searches (Books, News, browser, highbeam, BBC, WalesOnline, South Wales Evening Post, Daily Post, South Wales, Argus, ITV and The Guardian) found nothing outstandingly good to suggest better improvement with this, this and this being my best results so there's simply no improvement or move target for this article existing since February 2009. Inviting recent editor TheGGoose. NOTE: I'm also nominating another obviously non-notable music article The Kings of Spain as my searches simply found nothing better than the listed coverage and what's more is that The Kings of Spain's website no longer exists therefore suggesting the band no longer exists themselves. This band's article has existed since August 2006 and was most likely started a band member or a fan. Notifying author Crummy. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @SwisterTwister: One is a soloist, Bethan Nia, the other is a band, The Kings of Spain. Why are they WP:BUNDLEed? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 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, 7 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 30 September 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, 7 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 19:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on "local interest" news coverage with no evidence of wider national or international media attention, of a musician notable only as a local busker. This is not a claim that satisfies WP:NMUSIC in and of itself, but there's nothing else here (such as having released albums, etc.) that does so either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a more substantive claim of notability and a wider array of sourcing, not limited to a single media market, can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's somewhat inaccurate to say the sources were limited to a single market. Yes, it is true the first five articles were broadcast locally, but the two most recent received national attention: Sebastian Brown was featured on the cover -- not a local subsection, but the national cover -- of the Toronto Star, which is the most widely circulated newspaper in Canada; and the CTV story aired twice on CTV National News, again, a nationally-televised broadcast, not a local edition. He also appeared on television in Taiwan, on a report by the CNA, which is that country's state broadcaster. To reiterate, this article has multiple reliable and independent sources, is the main focus of the articles published by those sources, and indeed has been the subject of wider national and international attention. this certainly satisfies WP:MUS number 1, and also number 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability): a Google search of "Ragtime Toronto" or "Honky-Tonk Toronto" yields several articles on this performer in the first two pages. Keep. Nate diddly (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #7, for the record, does not mean that every individual combination of "City" + "Musical genre" that you could possibly come up with creates an automatic inclusion freebie for one musician; rather, the particular City + Musical genre combination itself has to also be a notable, encyclopedic thing in its own right. For #7 to have any bearing on whether Sebastian Brown qualifies for an article or not, we would have to be able to write an article about "the Toronto ragtime scene" as an identifiable phenomenon of international interest — the criterion does not mean that every individual musical genre that exists at all automatically entitles the most locally prominent Toronto musician in that genre to a Wikipedia article, if that genre's Toronto-based "scene" isn't a thing that people outside of Toronto have also heard of in a substantive way. If "Toronto ragtime" were a thing that was getting international attention in international music media, then #7 would come into play — but #7 does not mean that you can just snap any city and any musical genre into a "most prominent of the local scene of a city" snowclone to create an automatic inclusion right for one local musician in every musical genre that exists in the city. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I still don't see how the article fails to satisfy #1, for the reasons I listed above. Nate diddly (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very convincing argument by Nate Diddly, it seems that the article already satisfies the criteria outlined by WP:NMUSIC in addition to the new additional criteria described by Bearcat. Keep. Erhik (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as there's not much else aside from the current information and my searches simply found some of the same coverage here and here (one of the links was also included at Books). SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC exists for a reason. Why are we inventing additional requirements for notability? Where are these new requirements coming from? Please refer to Wikipedia:List of policies, or cite some precedent. Nate diddly (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, the only one I can think fits best is music notability guidelines as the current sourcing does not set him apart from any ordinary musicians and will likely even need better coverage local notability much less all around notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured on the cover of the Metro -- the most widely circulated paper in the entire country -- and was featured on the cover of the Star -- the second most widely-circulated paper in the country. Again, not a page-17 footnote, but a full-on feature on the front cover of the two-largest newspapers in the country. And he was featured on CTV National News -- the most widely broadcast evening news program in the country -- and on the State Broadcaster of Taiwan. These clearly satisfy the notability guidelines, in addition to the new guidelines we've invented specifically for this one article, all of the information is well-sourced and detailed, the sources are professional, independent, and consistent. I really don't understand what more we're asking for. Keep, again. Nate diddly (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while you're allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as many times as you like, you're not allowed to make more than one bolded keep or delete "vote". Accordingly, that part of your comment here has been struck out.

As for the newspapers, Metro consists of several distinct local editions which do not share most of their content across markets; he may have made the cover of the Toronto edition, but he certainly did not make the cover of every edition. And the Toronto Star attains its circulation figures entirely by virtue of being the dominant newspaper in the country's largest metropolitan area — it does not have any significantly-sized readership outside of the GTA. And newscasts, even national ones, routinely carry human interest "here's somebody you've never heard of before who's doing something kind of cool" pieces about people who don't get encyclopedia articles just because that newscast carried that piece, especially when they can just borrow a piece already created by one of their affiliate stations instead of having to commit their own resources to producing a separate one. And as for the coverage in Taiwan, you keep asserting that but you haven't shown any verifiable proof that it's true — people routinely try to get their pet articles into Wikipedia by claiming that coverage exists which actually doesn't pan out when somebody actually tries to find it, so it's not enough to just say that it exists if you don't show it.

Ultimately, "what more we're looking for" is evidence that he's done something, such as having released albums or songs that are actually getting radio play, that would make him somebody that any significant number of Wikipedia readers are likely to have already heard of, in a significant, sustained and "will actually remember his name twenty minutes later, because they've already heard it more than just once" sort of way. If a person could get an article on here just because their existence was verifiable in two or three distinct sources, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and neighbourhood watch committees and coordinators of church bake sale committees — hell, we'd have to keep an article about me if that were all it took. Coverage can't just exist; it has to verify that they've done specific things that would make them a topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2<10. Please direct me to ten distinct professional sources about the same head of a church bake sale committee. Nate diddly (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any city that has even one local media outlet will always have at least a couple of dozen, likely far more, people who are active enough in the local community to get their names into media coverage on that local outlet anywhere from two to fifty times a year. (Just as an example, there's no such thing as a city councillor, in any city, who doesn't get media coverage locally, yet we explicitly deprecate city councillors as not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia except for a very rarefied tier of special cases — because even though all city councillors could always pass GNG on local coverage, the substance of that coverage almost always fails to demonstrate any particular reason why they would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia with an international audience.) And the more local media outlets there are, the more likely it is that both the number of locally active people who are getting their names into the local media on a moderately regular basis and the number of media hits they're getting are going to shoot up even further. But that still doesn't necessarily make them all suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia just because that coverage exists, if it's not covering them in a context that's of any substantive non-local interest (such as a musician having actually recorded albums that have actually garnered national or international release.) Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This is a screenshot of one of the CNA articles, but I can't find the originals because I don't speak Chinese. Nate diddly (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown is well-known in downtown Toronto. I work in the area and talk with a lot of people there, most are aware of him. Of course, anyone could make such a claim without evidence, in which case we should say, "Who cares?" But the extent of the media coverage speaks to the subject's notability. Erhik (talk) 21:48, 10 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 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Paço de Arcos

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

Unsourced stub about a Portuguese title of nobility. I was unable to find public sources to verify the information in this article. Additionally I have concerns that it may fail the notability guidelines. Mww113 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wish to side on keeping the article on the counts of Paço de Arcos. First, the article's references state the source of the content (including page number). Owing to the subject matter they are in Portuguese, as would be expected, including the [this] from which this general article was based. Furthermore, in terms of notability the Counts of Paço de Arcos have appeared referenced in other online resources, this general article only uses the "Count" variant of the Portuguese. Regardless, a search on the subject matter will discover other references to "Conde de Paço de Arcos" or "Conde de Paço d'Arcos", including examples of genealogical records, thesis and online research. As much as they may be skewed to the first count, the countship is discussed, noting the importance in the diplomatic, military and economic spectrum in the formative efforts in Brazil. I can also cite that there are online references to Henrique Belford Corrêa da Silva, 2nd Count, indicating the counts importance as well. I hope that this will justify the Countship of Paço dos Arcos/d'Arcos. I suggest that this content be considered a "stub", but that there are important reasons for keeping it.^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from what User:Zeorymer says, this is clearly not a hoax, but a genuine hereditary title of nobility. We have articles on every such British title; and I see no reason for not having them for other countries. The only exception for British titles is where the first holder was also the last, when we redirect to his bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 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 nomination. Can be restored if more relevant sources are found. Sandstein 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A mid-ranking military officer. And a Deputy Lieutenant doesn't qualify either - it's just an honorary position. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain as others may be more familiar with this but I would also think this is a historic and interesting subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) Delete, or rather redirect to Grey Egerton baronets, delinking the article there -- Neither being a major, not DL, nor owning a substantial landed estate (which Oulton Park is (or was) is sufficient: clearly NN. There do not seem to be any links to later generations of the family that will be upset by this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 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: Withdrawn by nominator with no remaining votes to delete or merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Torrance

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

This article is about a character in The Shining. The article is completely unsourced, full of obvious original research and in my opinion it does not contain any verifiable information that The Shining (novel) does not adequately cover. Additionally, the article is poorly written with numerous typographical and grammatical errors. I recommend its deletion per WP:CITE, WP:STYLE, and WP:OR. Mww113 (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer wish to propose the article's deletion, however I think it may be a good idea to leave this open for a while to see if there is consensus for a merge or not. However, if someone believes the discussion ought to close, we can move the merger proposal to the article's talk page. Mww113 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I would like to withdraw the nomination as there no longer seems to be cause to merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to The Shining (novel). --Slashme (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) - The article now actually does a good job to assert notability and discuss the topic properly. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This character is the main protagonist in the sequel novel Doctor Sleep, as evidenced here. We need to focus on whether or not the character is notable enough for a stand-alone article; the quality of the article is completely beside the point, per WP:BEFORE. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable fictional character; I have added some commentary about Danny Torrance based on his central appearance in Doctor Sleep. There also appears to be commentary about Danny in The Shining (both the book and film). I also rewrote the lead section to give the character's fictional appearances more real-world perspective, such as who played him onscreen. Also support moving to Danny Torrance as the common name for the character. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mww113, Slashme, are either of you willing to consider keeping the article based on the overhaul? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to The Shining (novel). While my WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:STYLE concerns have been eliminated with the overhaul (which was quite nice, I might add), I still remain unconvinced that it should be a stand alone article per WP:BKMERGE. I think it would be more visible as part of the main article as I think more people are likely to search for The Shining than this character. But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone wants to present a good argument as to why the character is notable enough. Mww113 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the update and assertion that the character is notable in multiple books, I'm satisfied that there is no longer cause to delete the article. Major props to Erik for a major overhaul that saved this article. I will be withdrawing this nomination. Mww113 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per above. I think I'd need to see sources that do some substantial character analysis before I would feel the character is notable enough, but I'm open to seeing what else may arise during this discussion as well. DonIago (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Keep - I think the sources that have been provided satisfy my concerns. It may still be worth having a separate discussion regarding merging the article, though Erik raises valid points about how that could best be handled. Very good work on bulking up the article. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mww113, Doniago, I added more content as seen here. When it comes to fictional topics, there will naturally be redundancy. An article about a work of fiction and an article about a fictional character will share content, but the focus will differ. I would agree that if a character appears in more than one work, it increases the likelihood of coverage of the character across multiple works. To have an article about a fictional character that appears in only one work, there would have to be a lot of coverage very specific to that character. If the character appears in multiple works, then a stand-alone article can be appropriate to consolidate all the significant coverage in a place that stands above any one article covering each work. I would also say in this case, Stephen King was apparently propelled to write Doctor Sleep out of others' specific interest in Danny's fate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, merging complicates where to put comparative content. Coverage about Danny beyond the original novel would not quite belong at the novel's article as it would in his own article. I think it is detrimental to balkanize the content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last comment, I've expanded the article by over 40%. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've removed my merge !vote: I don't think it's a problem to keep the article now that it discusses the character in a broader context and asserts notability. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 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 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lockhart

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

Stub on a Canadian artist. Lacks significant sources, both in the article and searches. I suspect it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but definitely draft and userfy as "Amy Lockhart filmmaker" found links here and there at Books (with most of 3), browser and the highbeam so this a case of top soon and we wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 15 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Philippou

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

Only famous for a legal battle with Virgin, surely a case of BLP1E? Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been running a company that is a group which starting to become a competitor for the virgin group, doesn't that warranty a Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phathu K (talk • contribs) 07:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as I found nothing better than links at News and browser and we can wait for a better article to be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BLP1E Secret (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 15 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 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne McFadden

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

There's simply not much to suggest better improvement and although my searches found links for the theatre reviews here, here, here and here and I doubt that the fact they were reviewed suggests she is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The reviews do provide appropriate coverage to establish notability, but the material listed above and available elsewhere should be added and integrated into the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing at this time to establish notability. She has been in the cast of 3 productions that I find, but I find very little which actually reviews her participation. A 2013 review of a Wicked revival said her work was "excellent at preserving" the musical and a 2015 review praised her work and the "beautifully complex choreography". But those are the only two sentences I find that actually go toward "her" notability. No biographical information, interviews, personal data, etc. that would lend to a stand alone article. Clearly she has helped Wicked maintain notability and it may be that she deserves at least a mention in that article. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She's not currently mentioned at the Wicked article, but if she were it would be worth redirecting there. Also worth mentioning she's also credited as "Corinne McFadden-Herrera". But also including that name I couldn't find enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's an actress who has been in some productions of notable works, but that does not make her notable. The sources don't provide enough in-depth coverage to show she meets either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 15 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 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hofheins

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

Questionable notable and the best links I found were this, this and this. Pinging users GermanJoe and Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article just needs sourcing. Sources are available. Article, in fact, is already tagged for sourcing, which raises the question of whether it is appropriate to bring articles to AFD when they seem fairly clearly to simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is not the only issue here. The subject did not compose any of the music in the films listed in the article -- he composed the music for the trailers. Similarly with the list of television programs -- the subject did not compose the music, he orchestrated the work of others. As for the ESPN themes, it is difficult to see how those brief instrumental themes confer any notability on the composer (and I note that the linked articles don't refer to the theme music at all, let alone discuss the input from any one composer). In all, I see a man who is having a successful music-related career, but not one that is worthy of notice by an encyclopedia. Going back to the question of sourcing, I see that much of the article's current state was added by User:Nathanhofheins. I presume that this is the same person as the subject of the article (and, if not, my apologies to the user). It is reasonable for us to note that, if the subject himself is unable to find sources for his statements, the rest of us have little hope of doing any better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing: here's his IMDB page, he orchestrates, [16]]. Write-ups in Deseret news (he doesn't work for the church, so this is a reliable secondary source, more or less the same as anyone getting mentioned in a large, hometown daily: [17]. Changing my vote to delete, as WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but definitely does not meet the notability criteria at present. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley

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

Questionable notable and easily A7 with its current state and the best my searches was this, this and this. This has existed with basically no significant improvement since starting February 2009. Pinging past users Nikkimaria and Ground Zero. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep and improve; article needs a thorough re-write, and sourcing. However, it is not a good candidate for deletion, The Rev. popped right up on google. Involved in what appear to be a series of scandals involving misappropriation of grants and donations. [18] , misuse of public funds [19] convicted [20] and given probation. He was a D.C. activist of some note, and a Marion Barry cronie. Certainly notable enough to keep. WaPo has lots of stories here: [21] on his good works and leadership, as well as on his financial skulduggery. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- From what I see in the article, I would have thought he was NN, but it sounds as if he is notorious. Is that sufficient to keep? No vote Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, his positive accomplishments can be on the page, along with his criminal activity. I have been involved with a somewhat similar situation at Matthew C. Whitaker, popular professor, real accomplishment, but most coverage is about his plagiarism, which has caused page-blanking and whitewashing, similar to the history of this page. The solution is not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve to give a full and balanced summary of the range of views available. The sources E.M. Gregory points to above are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Washington City Paper pieces are well larded with speculation, innuendo, and sensationalism, and would have to be used carefully, but the Washington Post pieces are better, and several are substantial, such as [22], [23] and [24], and [25]. Worldbruce (talk) 00:15, 11 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 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Margaret Mackworth-Praed

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

SPA-created article about a probably non-notable Swiss-English artist. Ref #1-2 are common gallery infos (of the same gallery), ref #3 is mostly about her husband and covers the artist only in 2-3 passing mentions. Ref #4 doesn't point to any direct information about her. A Google search found no in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[26] is a report about one of her exhibitions, but seems to be written by a connected author as part of university news. GermanJoe (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found a few links at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better at this time. Pinging user Cahk. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to lack basic coverage. Even the cited "Two Artists of Exceptional Talent" hardly mentions her. I found little more than was cited already in her article. The Visarte Ticino gallery (in FN4) link was dead and defaulted to their main page, but there were other mentions of her on other pages of their website, for example here on page 24. But fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Three of the eight hits in Google books were "Who's Who" bios of her husband, Paul Glass. One was a gallery catalog of her work from Galleria SPSAS. One was the exhibition catalog of the show "Acqua, terra, cielo, fuoco" running 16 September - 1 October 2000, which featured four artists. A third catalog was a gallery catalog of a 2 March - 5 April 2012 show. Textilforum (2001) listed her once in a sentence with several other artists and one Myths and Counter-myths of America: New World Allegories in 20th Century Italian Literature and Film did not mention her at all. --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Caledon Grey Egerton

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN). Or indeed any other honours. A junior military officer. Just a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely unless this can be improved as I found nothing better than some Books links. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his war record can certainly be sourced to newspapers of the era. He almost certainly has an obit for the came reason someone has given him a Wikipedia page: he inherited a baronetcy. Also, he inherited a baronetcy, ergo, reliable sources on him exist. The lives of baronets get recorded. At the very least, there will be news reports of his birth, marriages, war service, coming into the title, and death. Tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a captain and inheriting a baronetcy have never been considered good reasons to give someone an article. You will notice that only first baronets usually get articles unless they personally did something significant. He didn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that would establish notability are cited here or in the article. "They are out there" is a weak argument, see WP:BURDEN, and nobody seems to want to argue inherent notability just because of the title. Sandstein 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article basically only covers 2 pieces of information about this person: that he was a soldier who fought in 2 wars and that he was married twice. The fact that he "received" a "baronet" is not even mentioned in the article, I had to learn that from this AfD. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:37, 17 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 nomination. Sandstein 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Water International

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

Lacks available reliable sources for establishing the notability of this company per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and feel free to draft and userfy as I see no chances of better coverage and improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 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 one "keep" opinion is unpersuasive, as all cited sources are genealogical - handbooks of peerages and such. Sandstein 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Grey

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

I can see no notability whatsoever here. No honours. Not senior enough for any inherent notability. Why is he notable? Looks like a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Humanity's longstanding fascination with aristocrats means that this scion of the nobility and his activities can undoubtedly be sourced more broadly (searches of the London papers of his era), although his position as heir to a viscount and the sources already in the article establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being able to find sources of his life events and being notable enough for a Wikipedia article are very far from being the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 7 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 Black Lives Matter as I'm boldly seeing this is what she's best known for so it's unlikely any further time is needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Garza

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

No third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page. JudgeJason (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability outside of the BLM Movement and not enough information in this article to merge into the Black Lives Matter article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect as this seems best for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Tometi

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

No third-party coverage outside of Black Lives Matter, so merge with that page.--JudgeJason (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage for her - it is primarily for her work with the BLM movement, but it's there. (See this news story.) I'm kind of unsure at the moment whether or not this should be redirected, given that she was on the movers and shakers list of a notable publication and there are some stories that focus more directly on her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Black Lives Matter per nominator. -O.R.^Comms 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." & invited to speak at Smithsonian Institution and Aspen Institute = significant critical attention. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those invitations is critical attention and she's an activist, not an artist anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:24, 9 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 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsbridge Rugby Football Club

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

No refs, and other issues. 333 -blue 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. A low level amateur club. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I'm not seeing much good but feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 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. AfD nominator has withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Tamakoshi

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

~~Fails WP:ORGDEPTH JMHamo (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

WITHDRAWING MY NOMINATION as the article has been significantly improved. JMHamo (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For now. --Zaalim (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I actually fixed this before User:Sphilbrick deleted it and I've been meaning to restore it to its better state. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this can be rescued and have started working on it. Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rescue is fairly complete now. Brianhe (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of above and current state of article now that it's being worked. Appable (talk) 23:37, 14 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. Discounting the nominator's statement, which makes no sense, and the two redirect opinions that offer no arguments, we have clear consensus to keep. Sandstein 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Squire of The Canterbury Tales

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

It is totally a story. 333 -blue 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to The Squire (Canterbury Tales). R F,2015-10-07Z14:12.

Redirect to The Squire's Tale... JMHamo (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sympathetic to redirect and/or merge~~ - however the pilgrims have a role in the framing narrative. We should have an over-arching article on the pilgrims, or articles on them individually. I am quite certain there is enough RS out there! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep there is, as I thought, a wealth of sources, though a proper library would be useful. I have expanded the article and re-written some of it. Many references have been added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment With fictional characters of minor importance, we often merge to a list article. Any reasons we don't create a list on Chaucer's characters? Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a list for "The Pilgrims (Canterbury Tales)" but they are not of minor importance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect as I'm weighing both equally. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost infinite academic sources on the topic. Covers different issues to the Squire's Tale article. Many thanks to Rich Farmbrough for heavily improving the article. Brustopher (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prune then merge to The Squire's Tale, as a section on the Squire (who tells the tale). This is ultimately a FORK of that. Canterbury Tales is a very important literary work, but I do not think we ought to have more than one article on each tale. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with doing that is the interplay between the tales, the pilgrims and the characters in the tale. For example in The Reeve's Tale the character and cuckolding of the story Miller is certainly interpreted as a slight by the pilgrim Miller. And in the instant case, as I have just added, one queer theory interpretation of the General Prologue draws The Pardoner into the discussion about the Squire, as a foil. The Squire is also important for understanding The Knight - who is still wearing the clothes he was wearing when he returned from the war. How, one might ask, did the Squire manage to maintain his immaculate image?
That's even without the obvious questions of glossing the description from the General Prologue which the original editor attempted - take for example the last line And carf biforn his fader at the table. despite six centuries the language is understandable, but we need to explain that the custom was for the senior squire to carve the meat in front of the knight (twentieth century interpretation of the line might read this as an attempt at usurpation) and therefore this reflect on the Squire's success in his chivalric endeavours.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, essentially per Brustopher, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brustopher's analysis. To argue that there isn't enough critical commentary on Chaucer to support an article on one of his significant characters is utter barking madness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:19, 12 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 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd economy

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

A very short article about a company, nominate for discussion because not CSD. 333 -blue 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a neologism, not a company (at least according to the text of the article as it exists when I'm writing this), and looks to be based on a single source, offering only a WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 11 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 speedy delete (G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion) by Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Sri sri nitaichaitanya paramhansadev

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

Unsourced hagiography of a local holy man. No signs of any general notability, and even if any were to be found, this article would need to be completely rewritten from top to bottom to meet Wikipedia guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 7 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. Overall consensus to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Sialkot

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

This list is only slightly larger than what is already in Sialkot. SethWhales^talk 21:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- nothing that a category can't do. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list here is more than twice as long as the list that was removed from by Sialkot article by GreenCricket on 2 October. I would agree that currently the much longer Category:People from Sialkot does the job much better than a list that requires periodic maintenance. However, I could envision an annotated list, organized by occupation and then chronology that would be appropriate, assuming that the guidelines of WP:Stand-alone lists for criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources are met. Adequate background information, also supported by citation to reliable sources, would need to be included in the lead. I note, for example, that there are twenty-eight cricketers from Sialkot that currently have Wikipedia articles. That said, this is not that list, and I suggest WP:TNT. When and if an editor wishes to create a list that does not duplicate the category, and which in turn complies with the guidelines at WP:Stand-alone lists, including individual citations for sources demonstrating the connection to Sialot if such are not present in each person's article, then recreation would be a valued contribution. Delete for failure to conform to WP:Stand-alone lists. --Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done necessary edits and added more personalities so i think article should be kept and secondly i prefer to discuss this article with Pakistani wikipedian so decide whether to kept or to delete. I think it's enough GreenCricket (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable topics and as a reasonable WP:SPLIT from Sialkot, and per WP:CLN as complementary to Category:People from Sialkot. Lists of notable people from a notable place are completely standard, and I see nothing particular to this list that would single it out for deletion, certainly no unfixable problems that would merit TNT (and deletion is always an odd way to go about expanding content). At best we'd merge it back to Sialkot, not delete it, but WP:SIZE alone would preclude that as this could be expanded to well over 100 entries judging from the corresponding category. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's a list of notable people that qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:People from Sialkot. It can be expanded in many ways that categories cannot. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it seems to serve a purpose. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with references using Category:People from Sialkot and Category:People from Sialkot District. Mar4d (talk) 08:08, 11 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, TOOSOON and even no evidence the results were ever published in refereed journals--Ymblanter (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum holonomy theory

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

No secondary sources available for this theory. WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that both of the references that I have added have either been or is in the process of being accepted for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Quantum holonomy - when that is created. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, its a little tricky, because "Quantum holonomy" is not directly what QHT is about - so I don't think merging to Quantum holonomy is a good idea. In QHT 'Quantum holonomy' is actually short for "Quantum holonomy-diffeomorphism", which we thought was too long for a title. If this article is not deleted then I will expand it with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespergrimstrup (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. It is too early tell if this work will have an impact on the field. There are no independent secondary sources discussing the topic in depth, which is a requirement for having a Wikipedia article. (A topic must be notable, already well-known, first.) The two references are primary sources, one still a preprint. In Google scholar the published source has only been cited twice and one of those is the preprint. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree WP:GNG is not yet met, but there may well be grounds for merge/redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Could this be merged into quantum gravity until such time as it may deserve its own article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed there Quantum_gravity#Candidate_theories =>Other approaches. I sense that there are many more candidate theories than we list. Quite what the criteria should be for being included in this list is not clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator. I also note that User:jespergrimstrup appears to be a co-author of the two cited papers. It would be better to Delete and wait to see if an unrelated party thinks this is worthy of an article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 11 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 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Andrade

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

Non-notable boxer - des not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage for WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramón Valadez for now maybe at least until a better article can be made and he may be closest linked to that fight. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an unusual precedent for boxers and flies in the face of common sense. Do we redirect all non-notable boxers that fought someone with an article to that article and since they fought more than one - to which article. The point is potentially moot since Valadez is not particularly notable himself and I will PROD it. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the significant independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX and does not have significant news coverage. Way too early for this article. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:34, 16 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 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Ghibaudo

(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, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the achievements to meet WP:KICK or the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Redirect to Alessandro Riguccini in case a better article can ever be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is the best option. It doesn't seem like to best idea to merge one fighter's article into another's. How do you determine which opponent to redirect to? Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:KICK (the notability criteria for kickboxers) and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:51, 12 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 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy Riese

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

I have tried to find some reputable sources for this article and come up short. The structure of the page is also not the best and professional I have seen. This is a relatively notable location around the UCLA area (I have personal experience with the area myself having been a student near this area), but I do not believe that this restaurant is notable enough outside of this small microcosm to necessitate a Wikipedia page. What does everyone else think? GoldenSHK (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)GoldenSHK[reply]

Comment - The discussion was erroneously created as a "second" discussion when in fact this is the first, was created without an afd2 template, and never listed in a daily log. Fixed now--not comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable as a stand alone article and merge information over to Westwood Village article. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Noise

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

This has been around for ever without a single ref. The text seems to provide no special claim to notability, and as it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7 --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The founder seems more notable than the band, but there's still coverage. They seem to have an extensive catalog, and I've located several reviews of their work: [27], [28], [29], [30]. Also a few interviews and such: [31], [32], [33]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant coverage in WP:RS? Also the article says many of their recordings were self-released. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the history of the band, and it's not easy to find facts online. But they got reviewed by Spin, CMJ, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Punknews.org, which is enough for WP:BAND #1. I don't know what a "more important indie label" is, but they apparently released albums on Relapse Records and Alternative Tentacles, both of which I would think satisfy #5. Also, this is perhaps contentious, but they seem to have originated or had a hand in originating powerviolence, a genre (see [34] from Vice; also [35] from The Quietus and [36] from San Antonio Current). That would maybe satisfy #7. They have no hope of satisfying the other criteria, but they seem to be well-known and respected within their niche. If you're wanting an article in Rolling Stone about their history, no, I can't find that. I can do more digging to find articles about their history, but I don't think these are available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because of the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources provided - Notability does seem to be there by a bare minimum!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion was "relisted" twice by @Esquivalience: on Sept. 15--the first listed it on the daily log for that day, the second one commented it out. Fixed now. --Finngall ^talk 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage identified is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Nomination withdrawn'

Snakes and Lattes

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

fails WP:CORP. suspect advert as created by single edit user. Coverage is all routine. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single edit user or no, there's actually a lot of coverage here - there's quite a few reliable sources beyond those already in the article - lengthy mentions in major sources like the Toronto Star. I'll probably add a few when I have more time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is substantial coverage in reliable sources, which are cited on the page, as well as additional sources available online, for example: [37] and [38]. Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG. None of that coverage is routine for a cafe. mikeman67 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added the above sources. I'll do more when I have the time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to Nwlaw63 for the recent Quality improvement efforts to the page. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 12 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) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haxie

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

Has had notability tag since 2010. Does not seem sufficiently notable. Contains only 2 refs, arguably very low quality ref sources. David Condrey ^{log talk} 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially agree with Nwlaw63, thank you for doing the due diligence on this one. And also agree with SwisterTwister, that is, without prejudice toward recreation with a well-sourced article, at some point in time in the future. — Cirt (talk) 17:20, 12 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He Xiangyu

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

Advertisement: writing style is overly promotional. Wcam (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - japantimes, Time, and additional results that come up in google news search indicate that there is sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. I would agree that "Artwork" section is overly promotional, but that is not a sufficient reason to delete the article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now as it may need to be improved and if it can't after time, we can talk about it again. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as uninitiated and I won't be able to correctly interpret the sources, but searching in Chinese should help: [39][40] Promotional tone is still surmountable, unless you need a WP:TNT then no objection. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:58, 14 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 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sic psycles promotions

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

Article about an apparently non-notable organization. I am unable to find any reliable sources the cover the organization in detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. Pinging tagger Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not found any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yes the group exists, and some local events get mentioned (with sometimes a hat-tip to the organization), but not enough to demonstrate notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 12 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 mostly do not address the sourcing situation, which is all that matters in such circumstances, I'm afraid. Sandstein 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viswant

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

appears to have had a significant role in only one film, a film which does not yet have an article (the apparent link in the article is just a redirect to the article on the director) DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as I'm simply not seeing any better improvement here. Pinging users Josu4u, Oiyarbepsy, JustBerry and McGeddon. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Found that this article has done significant role in a film called Kerintha. Request all of you to take a look at the links which has been provided and as he is a famous personalty from Tollywood industry and is about to make one more movie, he deserves an article on wikipedia. kindly consider and do the needful. Itsmeesathya (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any importance with this article. But in later we need to provide an article on Wikipedia for him. As from the references i cannot even find any websites which is listed on Google.Josu4u (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted DGG Found that this article is a well known actor from Telugu film industry and has earned a good name and fan base with his first movie "Kerintha". He is committed to other three projects in which one is going to be produced by the same production house of Kerintha. Apart from that he is doing some modeling assignments also. Considering his current and upcoming projects this Article will help many people who want to know more about him. Kindly consider and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrameshvarma (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted DGG If this article hasn't got any importance then his profile wouldn't be listed in filmibeat, check this link http://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/viswant-actor.html . Article has major importance and also check this link http://www.themangonews.com/entertainment/viswant-a-star-in-the-making. there are many links on web in-order to prove the article ethnicity. I request you to do a snippet. Request you all to undo delete Viswant article and consider the same. Itsmeesathya (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's a mere listing, like IMdB` DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @SwisterTwister: Thanks for the ping. Quite frankly, I had CSD'ed this tag when it was in this state. Itsmeesathya decided to remove the CSD tag here, which wasn't appropriate in the first place. Although there is an article for the film, the notability of the actor, even in the context of the film, doesn't seem to be substantial enough. --JustBerry (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be Deleted I understand the rules and regulations of Wikipedia but i see everyone opposing the article. yes i agree today it might not be famous to complete audience but relevant audience would like to know more about the article. so according to A7 clause i feel this article should stay and need all your support. May be in future the article may grow more in content and as the article is growing towards a good establishment Priya.wom (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Delete With all due respect, the article is about a significant person from Tollywood, just because you don't him doesnt mean that he should have a wiki page. He is doing decent contribution to the industry and is well know for his endorsements as well as his upcoming movies. So I suggest that this page should not be deleted. Devilishious (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It's clear to us that he is not very significant in Tollywood, or anywhere else. Please read WP:TOOSOON. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Oiyarbepsy i think you have given the correct criteria clause but forgot to read it. please have a look at WP:TOOSOON where it is clearly mentioned in Actors and actresses section that A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen in this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then. Look at the bold sentence and have a check. Here viswant movie is released & he has done a critically acclaimed role and suitable links are provided which is more then enough but still everyone are arguing without even understanding the whole clause in WP:TOOSOON. I request you all to go through this and this article Shouldn't Be Deleted. Itsmeesathya (talk) 16:41, 16 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 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentö

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

Questionable notability and article was created by the artist's record company. PROD was contested. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is possible to be done? popsonic-rec —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article by COI editor. Given the absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this individual satisfies the basic notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one properly respond to this? Also, what does 'your page has been patrolled,' exactly mean? Thank you for all of your help. I hope I didn't do something wrong, or put the artist's page/reputation in jeopardy by my lack of knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsonic-rec (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 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 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince's Inlet, Nova Scotia

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

I can find no indication that this is a community.[41] There is a small bay (which seems non-notable) with this name, a road with this name, and a planning area with the name which includes several communities in the area. I can find nothing with the civic address locator [42]. I PROD'ed this article but User:Zpeopleheart replied with a reference that points to the bay, with a comment that is clearly a Wikipedia mirror. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search of the official Nova Scotia website brought up nothing except one document mentioning "Prince Inlet", a body of water. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's no good move target and no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 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. Consensus is for article retention. Also, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a later comment, stating "sure" about the notion of withdrawal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Gorch

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

I did the best I could do: the sources I found and added, that's all there is in ten pages of Google results. At best this deserves a paragraph in the article for the first season of SNL; by itself it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It was a good sketch in Season 1 of Saturday Night Live. The Muppet characters in this sketch were heavily praised and even made a cameo in "The Rainbow Connection" finale of The Muppet Movie. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you need reliable sources to prove these statements. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). I found a few other book sources - I think there's enough there overall to mention it in the SNL first season article - but overall I don't seen enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing lots of references, even if we just limit it to books and not other types of sources. More at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Have a great day, and remember to spend some time outside, in the fresh air, and take in the wonders of nature, — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agreed, there is little here that justifies anything more than a section in the SNL first season article -- if that. Yes, it was a "good sketch" -- but from a WP paradigm, so what? All parties involved quickly realized that it was a poor fit for the show, and the concept was abandoned. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of references easily available to perform a Quality improvement project on this article. Loads of examples, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with guideline WP:NPOSSIBLE that an article's quality or length or it not using available sources is not a reason to delete. While certainly any article within these pages could be whittled down and eventually merged somewhere else, that does not BUILD an encyclopedia. While AFD not intended to force improvements, I believe in WP:SEP and in my attempts improving this project for its readers (and I've had some small successes doing so) I would far rather improve something myself or seek other's help in improving if I have weaknesses. I look beyond present state and instead look toward WP:POTENTIAL. This topic, spoken of in |more-than-trivial manner in numerous sources (thank you Cirt, for always looking beyond an AFD template's fallible "Find sources") is notable per guideline. We improve that which is improvable, for even in its admitting it is itself imperfect, deletion does not always improve a growing Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Please note -- I've expanded the page with sourced material, and improved its quality greatly. Please visit this updated version of the article to evaluate whether this article should be kept or not on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.~~ — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this pointer, since the subject of the article is only peripherally related to NYC. BMK (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live has been an integral part of the culture of New York City, per Saturday Night Live (season 27). But no worries, won't post there again, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massively improved. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's much better now; sometimes a Sword of Damocles provides the necessary stimulus for improvement. I still don't think this sort of subject matter fits under the category of "encyclopedic", but others clearly do -- so, fine - keep it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DoctorJoeE:, thank you for acknowledging "Yes, it's much better now". Since you've changed your view to "so, fine - keep it" -- will you please strike your "Merge" comment, above? — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't changed my mind so much as yielded to majority opinion, but I have stricken the comment. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY, and kudos to Cirt for his work. Someone ping the nom and see if he wants to withdraw this. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Per request, above to ping the nom, made by Jclemens. And my thanks to Jclemens for the kind words about my recent Quality improvement efforts. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully sourced article and notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 12 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.