Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 October	13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Optiks (record producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer. He may have worked with some known artists, but the last I looked, notability was not inherited. Lacks in-depth support for individual's notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also, article creator is a WP:SPA with probable WP:COI, suggesting a promotional motive to the article - contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2016[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage. Richie Campbell (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable event and there's that crystalball thing as well. Yintan 19:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simply WP:CRYSTALBALL. No use of keeping this article. I'm also not convinced that the individual pages of the events are notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:HAMMER. No experience editor could support keeping this. We have almost always deleted future, less notable beauty ocntests. There are no known details that could make this even a viable stub. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily C. Heath[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her journalism is not at a level to establish notability, and the nature and structure of the religious group she belongs to are not such that her position is one of notability of an encyclopedic level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have notified women project of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable - fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At best, dubious -- NN journalism; minister of a church - usually NN; which leaves us with what appears to be a non-academic book, whose notability is at best not established. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches have failed to establish notability for her or for her book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is severely lacking here. I don't see enough third party sources (the affiliated sources and the blog don't count). Neither would the subject pass any of the other guidelines of an Author or Journalist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An internet search for me turns up only non-independent sources and some works the subject wrote. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Thegreatgrabber (talk) ^contribs 02:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Seattle mayoral election, 2009. It doesn't sound like those giving the earlier "delete" opinions would disagree. Sandstein 12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mallahan[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city, which is sourced entirely to WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the mayoral election itself with no evidence shown of any media coverage in any other context. As always, however, non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he had preexisting notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability because of the election. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cannot establish the "political activism" claim outside of his sourced website. Everything else is associated with the failed run for mayor. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Although there is significant biographical detail in the Seattle Times, I think he fails WP:GNG because he has nothing but WP:LOCAL coverage. I think this should be pruned back and mentioned in regional elections articles, if anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seattle mayoral election, 2009, since if this article is deleted then the election article will contain no information, and no bluelink, about the top runner up. Failing WP:POLITICIAN is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Simply scroll up a bit and read "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". Criteria like WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST or WP:NPOL exist as additional paths to keeping an article after they have failed WP:BASIC also known as WP:GNG. Mallahan is notable for spending three times as much money as McGinn, winning all the major endorsements including the Governor, Seattle Times, and more, and only losing by a small margin. This unusual race was covered non-locally, for example, Money Can't Buy You Love; Mayoral Races, The Economist, November 7, 2009, or D'Aprile, Shane. Washington Politics Magazine Nov.-Dec. 2009. We don't need to keep all the content from the Joe Mallahan bio, but keep enough to give a complete narrative of the 2009 election and results. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, SNGs do not exist as "additional paths to keeping an article after they have failed GNG". People quite regularly try to create PR-inflated, or sometimes even outright hoax, articles about topics that are claimed to satisfy an SNG but actually don't, so an SNG cannot be passed without GNG-eligible sourcing to support it — and people also quite regularly try to claim that GNG is passed on the basis of really trivial coverage like "local teenager tweets about Taylor Swift" or "nine-toed teen tries out for high school football team" in the local Pennysaver, so coverage doesn't count toward GNG until it's in a context that specifically goes toward satisfying an SNG. In other words it's not GNG or an SNG — it's GNG and an SNG simultaneously with each other. They work in tandem with each other, not as distinct alternative paths.

And it's not our responsibility to maintain more than minimal "name and vote total" content about "top runners up" in elections — our job here is to publish appropriate information about the person who won the election and thereby became the actual mayor, not necessarily to maintain biographical details about non-winning also-rans. I'll grant that the election article certainly needs more content than it has about the issues that were raised in the campaign as points of discussion and debate, but it doesn't need any more content than it has about Mallahan's personal background or his finances. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right there in the intro of the Notability policy it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Enough said.

I have no idea why you say "It is not our responsibility" with responsibility in italics as if I had made any such assertion, or as if I said that it was our job or that anything was mandatory. That's all an irrelevant straw man. We're not mandated to do anything, and no outcome is guaranteed. We don't have to redirect and merge, but I think it's the best choice, and I have good reasons.

The point of my merge !vote is to argue that it is more of an improvement to redirect Joe Mallahan to the election article than to drop readers who click on his name on a blank page, and the election article is better if it gives readers some background and detail about the major candidates. The AfD guidelines say "Alternatives to deletion should be considered". WP:ATD-M says, as an example, that information about a non-notable individual could be merged in to a related article about a notable topic. WP:POLOUTCOMES says that merging a non-notable also ran into an election article is a common and often desirable AfD outcome. The WP:POLOUTCOMES has a lot of unnecessary WP:BEANS warnings not to keep any uncited BLP content, and don't userfy articles that shouldn't be userfied, but otherwise, it's consistent with all of the above policies. Every single Featured Article about an election (I count eight) contains extensive biographical information, including personal background unrelated to issues, about all major candidates, including also-rans, and in many cases even sketches in details about minor party fringe candidates. You are entitled to your opinion that an election article should exclude such details, but I, and an apparently large number of FA editors and reviewers, think that articles with these details are better. Besides the mere opinion from me and many editors that such background and context makes a better articles, WP:NOTSTATS is one policy that points in the direction of fleshing out articles with quite a bit more than just Mallahan's, name, employer and job title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested and as usual practice. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since he received a fair amount of votes and may be notable in the future. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Grabiec[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. PROD removed by article's creator. agtx 23:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is acting at the direct request of the actor's agent. See [1] Meters (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He's had significant roles in some theatre productions (for example Macbeth in Macbeth, Titus Andronicus in Titus Andronicus). Those plays are obviously notable, but but I don't know if those particular productions qualify as notable performances under WP:NACTOR. Meters (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Highly unlikely. They're summer Shakespeare festival roles [2]. Notable productions would need to be something closer to NY or London mainstream theater productions. agtx 23:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The theatre work has now been removed from the article. His film and TV work does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR and I have not found significant sources to show notability. Meters (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now the theatre work is back, but it does not help. Meters (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I commented in my earlier PROD submission, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. The creator of this incarnation of the article states that he's "well known within the British Theatre and Indie-Film scene". Perhaps many folks in those scenes know him personally or know of him, but I find no corroboration of this in reliable sources as required for a notability determination here. Largoplazo (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. U. Coates[edit]

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

Delete. Biography, sourced only to The Political Graveyard with no evidence of notability-conferring media coverage shown, of a person notable only as a non-winning third party candidate for political office. As always, being a candidate for office is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, but nothing here sources (or even really claims) any notability for anything else. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Coates had been a major party candidate the article might have a chance to work. If people could dig up sources that seek to be other than comprehensive databases there might be a chance. However the Political Graveyard is intended to include every candidate who ever ran, which is not our goal here at Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the three comments above. It definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN since Mr. Coates was only a candidate for office. Dolotta (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin political candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eleven biographies of people notable only as non-winning third party candidates for political office in Wisconsin between 50 and 70 years ago. As always, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — their names can certainly be mentioned in the results tables on the relevant election articles, but they don't get standalone biographies unless they can be sourced and substanced as notable for more than just having their name on a ballot in an election they didn't win. But in each of these cases, the sourcing is parked primarily on The Political Graveyard and pro forma inclusion in a historical database of the election results, neither of which really counts at all toward meeting WP:GNG — nine of the articles are sourced only to one or both of those sources, Uphoff adds her paid death notice as support for her date of death but nothing else that would help build an actual GNG claim, and Emerson adds one news article which just namechecks his existence but is primarily about the winner of the election rather than him. Which means none of them pass WP:NPOL, and none of them are shown as notable enough for anything else to counterbalance that. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated 3rd party candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I mentioned in some of the individual AFDs, I believe that this group of people do not meat automatic inclusion under the politician criteria and none reach, in my estimation, articles on their own merits for other reasons.Dolotta (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Desktop Manager[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Purely promotional. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. RSes very short on the ground - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Created by WP:SPA seemingly for promotional purposes. Not notable. Citobun (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Diggs[edit]

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

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. This person does not have any important works that have charted or otherwise become well known. Very little can be found written about him in reliable secondary sources. He does have a film actor profile at IMDb, but that website is not reliable because it allows users to edit.[3].

(Note that other people named Gabriel Diggs may be found in an online search, but they are not the DJ/actor who is the subject of this article. I found a bodybuilder, a cocaine dealer, a genealogy case study, and a murder victim in Liberia around 1965.)

The kind of stuff that can be found about DJ Gabriel Diggs is his website and this article by Angelique Bianca in FitEDM, a fitness publication. The FitEDM website has hardly any traffic (I looked it up in a WHOIS search) so that doesn't help very much for notability. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician with the article too heavily reliant on subjects website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm afraid this doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. His album on AllMusic has no reviews. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dennis (businessman)[edit]

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

Delete. Inadequately sourced WP:BLP, created by User:DaveDennisGov in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO, of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate in a party primary. This is not something that gets a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but the substance and sourcing here is not demonstrating that he has sufficient preexisting notability for his business career. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only notable for running in a gubanatorial primary, and he is clearly not notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Danaher[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for office, which is sourced only to a single obituary in his hometown newspaper and to The Political Graveyard (which, regardless of any quibbles about whether it's a reliable source or not, is definitely not a source where inclusion confers automatic notability in and of itself.) There's simply not enough substance or enough sourcing here to make him notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I looked for more sources and found [4] which has a paragraph-length bio, but nothing in it seems to indicate to me anything that would pass notability. [5] has a photo if we end up keeping this. These do suggest the possibility there are better sources, so I'd be happy to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was not even elected mayor of Luddington, that is how unnotable he was. Candidates for congress are not default notable, nor are delegates to a party's national convention.01:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment - this is a very marginal case. I'm not sure if we've ever kept a DNC delegate on that alone. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McClellan[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for a city council seat. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia -- although Chicago is in the rarefied class of cities where city councillors do qualify for articles, a person still has to win the seat, not just run for it and lose, to attain notability because of a city council election per se. Further, this is based entirely on primary sources like candidate lists and election results tables, with the exception of a single article on a blog which provides a summary overview of all the candidates in his ward rather than being substantively about this candidate. And nothing here demonstrates or sources that he would have qualified for an article for any other reason, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it might not be a claim of notability but history is part of notability . please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob20162016 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to document every single thing that ever happened at all, right down to everybody who ever ran for and lost a city council election. Our role is to document important things that people will still need to know ten years from now, like presidents and prime ministers and congressmen, not every little bit of historical WP:TRIVIA that ever happened in a city council election. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated candidates for US congress are not notable, those for city council even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL; strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using a couple of spellings, I checked Google web, Google news, Google news archive, and Google books. I found this, which was in-depth and interesting, but I don't see that other media reported this story, or have tried to explain why the signatures were discounted. I checked the Interlanguage links and no other Wikipedia covers this topic. I checked the What Links Here, and did an English Wikipedia search for a couple of spellings of the name, without finding suitable redirects. Fails WP:DEL8, including the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. If he had been elected to the Chicago city council, then he'd be notable. However, unelected political candidates are not automatically notable. Few of the sources are reliable or in-depth. We are a charity, neither Ballotpedia nor a free web host for aspiring politicians. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph R. Bucknam[edit]

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

Delete. Biography, based entirely on directory sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even being a major party candidate would probably not put him to notable status in any of these races, being a 3rd party candidate clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll put my vote in, but I can't add anything to what has already been said. Dolotta (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10-minute haircut[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be enough reliable coverage for this to meet WP:GNG. Coverage is mostly trivial, promotional or unreliable (blogs). Chickadee46 talk 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not even sure if this is supposed to refer to a particular company or a type of service, but there are no sources available either way. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. It is unlikely to be expanded. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage available that indicates this topic is notable - it fails GNG. Wikipedia is also not a collection of indiscriminate information and this is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia does not mean one is notable - the article may be deleted there in a week for not being notable, or they might have different criteria than ours. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of receiver threads (firearms)[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic, per WP:N. It has no sources - probably because nobody thinks that a list of receiver threads is worth writing about. It looks like original research, just a list of dimensions that someone compiled from who knows where. I put a PROD tag on it, but an editor followed me there to revert it, writing, "No need to delete this article. It contains useful information."[6] However the standards for Wikipedia articles requires more than simple utility and WP:NOT specifically says that WP is not a repository of this type of miscellaneous material. Felsic2 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for all the reasons listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a translation from Norwegian wiki. The information could be sourced, just because neither the New York Times nor Pravda writes about it does not mean that sources do not exist. The information is too specialized for the average reader that visits wiki and this is not a "how-to" guide.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The content is valid on the Norwegian wiki. Why not here, too? The issue is one primarily of sourcing, which User:Mike Searson has noted. The information is certainly useful. I don't see the need to delete it strictly because it contains firearms-related information, contrary to what User: Felsic2 seems wont to try to eliminate all vestiges from Wikipedia. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what rules apply to the Norwegian Wikipedia website. On this site, articles and lists need to have sources. This list has none. It would be valid to simply delete the unsourced contents. Please don't make personal comments where they don't belong. Felsic2 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spread offense. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball on grass[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary, or a dictionary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary WebCite^Talk 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to spread offense. Neumeier's historical role is already discussed there--not that I'm holding that article up as a beacon of good structure, sourcing, or writing--and with an appropriate source, it's not unreasonable to consider including this term in that context. But there's no chance at all of this being an independent article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes sense as it may be a searchable term.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spread offense per Squeamish Ossifrage and Paulmcdonald as a plausible search term. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I added a separate article for "basketball on grass" is that this is a term that is used in multiple articles in Wikipedia and all over the internet without explanation or attribution, and it has been attributed incorrectly. See, e.g., Vinny Sutherland, Northwestern Wildcats football. S.C. Gwynne's new book, The Perfect Pass: American Genius and the Reinvention of Football (Scribner, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2016) utilizes this phrase to characterize a different American football offense. Therefore, I think a separate article is appropriate and that a "redirect" would not be adequate under the circumstances. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia structure, sourcing or writing and would be happy to collaborate with someone who is. I would also be happy to provide sourcing (e.g. "Football Revolution" by Bart Wright (2013)). I hope this helps. I have never participated in one of these dialogues before, so if I have not followed protocol, please excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (LorinFife)) 00:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment go ahead and source it and I'll happily reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi McGuire[edit]

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

Delete. Another campaign brochure for an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. But nothing here demonstrates any preexisting notability for some other reason; it's based entirely on WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself but for one news article from 2015 which just namechecks her existence while not being about her. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing much out there except the announcement of her candidacy and a Chicago Tribune endorsement. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will only be notable if elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Holan[edit]

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

Delete. Another campaign brochure for an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. But nothing here demonstrates any preexisting notability for some other reason; it's based entirely on WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am beginning to wonder if someone was trying to make a point about the number of women running as Republicans for seats in the Illinois legislature. This may be worth writing a blog or news article on, which depending on where it is published might be worth creating an article at some point like Susan B. Anthony's List and the 2016 campaign for the Illinois House of Representatives, but unless these individuals win it is not worth having articles on these people, and unless there is lots of coverage under that potential title, even one article even in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times would not overcome the fact that Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the creator's point was specifically about women running as Republicans per se — he also created some articles about men, and at least one about a Democrat as well. Rather, his point seems to be that we should accept and keep articles about candidates because it can bias the election results if we don't — especially given that his recent edit history also seems to include editing an already-closed AFD discussion on a candidate to trash the deletion rationales with, in one of the most impressive feats of "completely missing the point" I've seen on Wikipedia this decade, the counterargument that John Kerry wasn't elected to his current position either. (Never mind that (a) elected or appointed, he's still a holder of a notable office and not just a candidate for one, and (b) he did hold elected office as a lieutenant governor and US Senator for 30 years before being appointed SoS. So, yeah, not so analogous.) Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Abernathy[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a not-yet-elected candidate in a pending election. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. This is based entirely on primary sources, all-candidate directories like Ballotpedia, and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election itself, so there's no valid claim of preexisting notability here. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it might be a part of history as she is known. you may help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob20162016 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to document every single thing that happened at all, including bad articles about political candidates. If she wins the seat, her place in history will be assured and she'll get an article accordingly — but as of right now, her potential notability claim is still in the future, not in "history". Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she wins, then an article will be justified, but not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bramswig[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP; concern was: Non-notable; fails the general notability guideline and notability guideline for American Football players. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't played professionally so fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Also, not finding really any coverage to speak of from college career and therefore not enough to pass WP:GNG either. Typically Division III athletes do not generate enough press to achieve notability, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such Is the Way of Things[edit]

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

No referenced nor notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No coverage found. An article isn't justified but as one of the band's two releases, worth a merge to Consafos while that article is there. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we could merge to the band article, but frankly that's deletable as well (and I've just PRODed it) - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Zettler[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, written even more blatantly like a campaign brochure or a LinkedIn résumé than usual, of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a pending election. As always, candidates do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates; if you cannot properly demonstrate and source that she was already eligible for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does get a standalone article until she wins the election. And this article is not based on reliable sources either, but is referenced entirely to all-candidate directories (Ballotpedia, VoteSmart) and blogs. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a candidate for office notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems no different than most WP:POLOUTCOMES: Does not meet WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article") or WP:BIO. No sources presented but a couple blogs and a couple non-RS sites where every candidate get an entry. (Same article creator User:Michael Powerhouse as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Parkhurst, where the comments speak for themselves.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another not as yet notable candidiate for office in Illinois.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British independence[edit]

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

This title, in the form of an article rather than a dab page was Afd-ed and deleted just a few days ago for it's nature as a POV-fork of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, replete with WP:SYNTH and the poorly supported promotion of a neologistic term. None of the terms listed in its new dab-page rebirth is notably referred to as "British independence".The use in the referendum context was comprehensively dismissed in the Afd debate. The idea that English, Scottish or Welsh independence is ever termed British independence is contradictory and illogical as well as plain incorrect. There was no such entity as Britain to become independent on the departure of Rome. And some obscure fantasists in the English Midlands, seriously? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This attempt at redefintion seems particularly unconvincing and perverse. By the same token, do the three subsections now mean independence from England, Wales and Scotland? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Britain, in any of the time that it has been unified, has always been independent, and if this is (as obviously) about Britain's relationship with the European Union the fact that such independence always existed is confirmed by the fact that the UK has the right to leave the EU without asking permission from anyone else. None of the linked articles contains anything that could be possibly called "British independence". 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.222.157 (talk)
Delete. The fundamental problems raised in the AFD for the article at this title aren't mystically resolved by making a disambiguation page consisting of entries that are, at best, partial title matches. This is an effort to push use of a term, not the intended purpose of disambiguation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ain't no dab page, even if you squint really, really, really hard. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However deplorable the term may be, surely no one can argue that "British independence" is a name uses for Brexit, and possibly other things.--02:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Prisencolin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe term among an an isolationist minority perhaps but not in common use and not a likely search term when most people will use "brexit".Charles (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a likely search term" You guys are joking right?- -Prisencolin (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't be entirely averse to a redirect from this title to Brexit. But that's unrelated to the current quasi-dab content here, so deletion is still warranted. And I'm not so naive as to believe that redirect could be implemented without drama (or likely maintained without protection). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page with the title "British independence" should be a dab page because it's not clear whether it should redirect to the Brexit process, the vote, or the aftermath page. Also, contrary to what others have said, it does seem like the phrase has been used by reliable sources to describe independence from the Romans.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Not a likely search anyway. This is seeking to evade AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs)
Delete. Totally misleading. This is Paul (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an absurd dab page. It may well be that some politicians use the term without explaining what they mean by it, but you could say the same about many other terms used in politics - "British democracy" for a start.--Mhockey (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Darril[edit]

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

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

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

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

I don't see any mark of his notability, and most of the current "sources" used on the article aren't supposed to be considered reliable, such as IMDB and Kickstarter. Googling his name (in English) brings up nothing but the fact he worked on NightCry, but that fact doesn't make him notable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's obviously a notable character into indie videogames industry, there is several notable references with valid sources listed in the original article.OCD_Gaymer (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)— OCD_Gaymer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep article to keep representing notable subject not only linked to games but also arts and movies generally.Gibenormann (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Gibenormann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep His job is particularly reliable for other projects like Remothered and Forgotten Memories: Alternate Realities and that he personally directed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.127.127 (talk) — 37.77.127.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep He's obviously a notable character into indie videogames industry.Follyinman (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]
Delete non-notable video game industry personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available sources consist of a few blogs, most of which seem to exist to promote video games. Fails WP:BASIC.- MrX 12:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can guarantee for myself, my friend. Stop this warflame. Just do your job, please.Follyinman (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]
  - Clearly you have not read WP:BLP and WP:RS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, non-notable. TarkusAB 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurell[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Archomental. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ogrémoch[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archomental. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Archomental. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Steve Show[edit]

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

Delete. Relist following a "no consensus because not enough participation" closure on the first nomination. This is still a single-station radio program with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMEDIA, and some overtones of ironic smartassery ("Since many residents of Tuscaloosa must arise early to sally forth and earn their daily bread"?) The closest thing to a reliable source here is an article in the university student newspaper — not a source that can carry a topic's notability by itself — with the only other sources being a user-generated chat forum and two random non-notable "facts about other topic" sites which don't actually mention this program at all, and are accordingly being cited as references for statements that the show isn't connected to those topics (see what I meant about smartassery?) A program has to have national distribution, not single-market college radio station distribution, to pass WP:NMEDIA — but the only other path for something like this to earn an encyclopedia article is to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Morning Show[edit]

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

Delete. Relist following a no-consensus-because-no-participation closure on the first discussion (and à propos of nothing, I am getting really sick and tired of how frequently that happens now.) This is still a minimally sourced article about a radio program which was syndicated to a couple of stations outside its home market, and might be eligible for an article on that basis if it could be properly referenced over WP:GNG -- but there are just two sources here, of which one is the show's own press release about itself (a primary source that cannot assist notability), and the other is a deadlink of a local news story in their hometown media (which is not a source that can carry a topic over WP:GNG all by itself.) This has been flagged since 2010 as needing additional sources for verification, with no discernible improvement since. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (largely unsourced) spam. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and lack of sources of the long term. Citobun (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hall monitor. A recreation after a rewrite and expansion with more sources remains possible. Sandstein 08:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hall pass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very short WP:DICDEF article, uncited since 2007, previous AfD not far from delete verdict. It's hard to see why this should not simply be deleted, though it could perhaps go to Wiktionary if there's anything to add there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Not sure if we are looking at the same previous AfD. Nine votes were cast, five for keep, four for transwiki and one (the nominator) for delete. In any event, this will never be more than a dictionary definition, but transwiki seems the better option than delete. Safiel (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current article is a dictionary definition, but I refuse to believe that is the upper limit of what this article could become. Typically, this is where I link a bunch of sources and go on with life, but I'm actually going to see if I can't rewrite this myself over the next few days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hall monitor, with a hatnote there to the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hall monitor until such time as a proper treatment of the topic can be done. I agree that the article could become more, such as the terms use in the modern vernacular outside of the original context, but commenting on what we have right now, redirect is most appropriate, as it is a viable search term. Crow^Caw 23:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkay Beverages[edit]

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

Mostly WP:PROMO and unsourced material. No indication of significance and WP:COI. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete some actual news coverage (even if in industry magazines), but I'm unconvinced of general notability; if culled to RSes, this would be a few sentences - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little in the way of real content with solid sources for the company itself. Note the article ~~creator~~ [contributor] User: Reynald Vito Grattagliano appears to have a COI since one of the company's directors happens to be named Reynald Vito Grattagliano. The user has not confirmed the COI, but it's a bit much to think this is a coincidence. The product would seem to notable, but note that earlier versions of the article ([7] for example) described the active ingredient as "W.A.R.M Molecule - called ALCOHOLSYNTH and/or ALCOSYNTH in Europe." We already have an article on Alcosynth, and one on its inventor David Nutt. The inventor of Alcohol Synth is strangely described only as company president "Sylvie Grattagliano's husband" ~~suggesting that her husband is (or possibly was) David Nutt, and that this article is just the marketing arm for David Nutt's product (or a spinoff from his work).~~ Both products make a point of stating that they are not a derivative of benzodiazepine. Meters (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article ~~creator~~ [contributor] has now removed the benzodiazepine comment. Meters (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Reynald Vito Grattagliano has responded [8] (editing as User:201.140.104.199) and [9] confirming his COI and stating that he is the inventor of the active ingredient and the unnamed husband of the president mentioned in the article. David Nutt is not associated with this company. If this product is in the market and predates Alcosynth as claimed, it would seem that we should have an article on this product (but not necessarily on this company). Meters (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Port Richey, Florida#Parks and recreation. This seems to be the correct venue for discussing whether this merits an article. Doesn't seem like it does, and a redirect had the most support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Park[edit]

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

Local park. No indication of anything of particular note. WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I had attempted to boldly redirect this to New Port Richey, Florida# Parks and recreation, but that was reverted. A redirect would be fine. John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate. This is a canonical place of local interest without independent notability for its own article. The park is already mentioned in the city's article, and the guideline (and my preference) suggests that redirection is the ideal course of action. In this case, that's somewhat complicated by the presence of a Sims Park in Euclid, Ohio. I want no part in the ongoing WP:TWODABS arguments, however, and the Euclid article doesn't discuss parks and recreation, so if this wound up merely redirecting to the Florida community, I wouldn't be sad overmuch, although people in Euclid may beg to differ. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Nominator is trying to get the article deleted because he got a redirect reverted. This is a content dispute, which as per WP:DP should be moved to a talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Port Richey, Florida#Parks and recreation - The nominator has done the correct thing - They were reverted so they've nominated it - The doesn't belong anywhere except here, Anyway moan aside I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with supporting WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All "keep" opinions are based on the argument that ambassadors are inherently notable. But because this is not supported by our inclusion guidelines, and attempts to amend them to provide for such notability have to my knowledge always failed, I must give the "keep" arguments considerably less weight here. Sandstein 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N. Balasubramaniam[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in any of his roles including ambassador. No in depth coverage. And keep voters, the "ambassadors are always notable " argument doesn't work. There is an American pathologist of the same name too LibStar (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The attempt to delete all ambassador articles which don't have in depth coverage shows the discrepancies we have when it comes to notability of biographical articles. Some Wiki projects have taken it upon themselves to give certain groups of individuals low thresholds of notability and as result we have thousands of articles of individuals who have little in depth coverage and would not meet WP:GNG. For example, WP:CRIC have come up with WP:CRIN which means an individual can qualify for an article simply by having played a first class cricket match. Unfortunately no Wiki project has come forward to say that all ambassadors are notable. As a result, according to Wikipedia policies, an ambassador isn't notable but a cricketer is notable, even if they have only played a single first class match (not an international) and scored a duck. The lack of coverage does not mean the individual isn't notable, just that the online resources are biased in favour of Anglophone speakers. An American/British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand ambassador to France and Singapore would have in depth coverage and would qualify for an article. But a Sri Lankan ambassador doesn't. We need a consistent approach to notability across all articles, not target certain groups for deletion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've made zero attempt to show sources exist (in any language) to meet WP:BIO . ambassadors are not inherently notable despite your long winded post. Ambassadors have been deleted of all nationalities including from English speaking countries. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comparing to cricketers is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read the article you would have seen that it has five English language WP:RS. I was not, as you well know, saying that the article should be kept because other stuff exists, I was merely highlighting the inconsistency in notability guidelines.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

using the inconsistency argument has zero bearing on establishing notabilty for this individual. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to say something about my first point?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 sources are indepth coverage of this individual. So therefore WP:BIO is not established . LibStar (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BIO is the only relevant policy when it comes to establishing notability, when you have finished deleting all ambassador articles please nominate for deletion the hundreds of first class cricketers articles who rely on a single entry on ESPNcricinfo to establish notability.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please nominate cricketer articles and see how far you go. The notability of cricketers has zero bearing on this article. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struggle to find any significant coverage about N. Balasubramaniam (noting that there is a Transport Commissioner in India and a Politician in Malaysia with the same name that register more hits), only a few mentions in passing. I'd have to concur that there is no in depth coverage, in accordance with WP:GNG to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassadors to such significant countries as France should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists claim. This is common sense and common sense doesn't require a policy. Also deputy permanent representative to the UN and a senior civil servant into the bargain. See the second entry at WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . A diplomat can get an article if he can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but does not get any automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of existing as a diplomat. Dan arndt (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense to actually demonstrate sources exist to prove notability. It is not common sense to invent inherent notability when no guidelines, policy or community consensus exists. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always makes me laugh when editors claim a policy, guideline or consensus needs to exist to illustrate common sense. The irony seems lost... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing remotely commonsensical about extending topics an exemption from having to be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. In an encyclopedia whose editing structure leaves us so incredibly vulnerable to the addition of false and tendentious and WP:BLP-violating claims and/or PR torquing and/or outright WP:HOAXes, verifiability in reliable sources is the only line of defense that we have in terms of keeping our articles accurate and unslanted. Accordingly, "diplomats are notable if they can be properly sourced" is the common sense position, and "diplomats are always inherently notable regardless of how much sourcing can or cannot be provided to support them" is not. "Common sense" includes being aware that not all people who edit Wikipedia articles are doing so responsibly, and that the quality of the referencing is our sole mechanism for managing the quality of the articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is not once gave you ever bothered to do searches for sources to establish WP:BIO. It always makes me laugh. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably need to look up irony in a dictionary! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you do, because LibStar is using it correctly. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can the ensuing debate focus on ascertaining the reliability and depth of coverage of the article's existing sources, please? A Train^talk 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with User:Necrothesp - "Ambassadors to such significant countries as France should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists claim." Also Agree with User:Obi2canibe - "The lack of coverage does not mean the individual isn't notable, just that the online resources are biased in favour of Anglophone speakers. An American/British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand ambassador to France and Singapore would have in depth coverage and would qualify for an article. But a Sri Lankan ambassador doesn't. We need a consistent approach to notability across all articles, not target certain groups for deletion."Shankar2001 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing inherent notability when there is none. I've seen ambassadors from anglophone countries deleted. If there is indepth coverage of this individual please actually show it. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is defined by the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage that the topic does or doesn't receive in media — no topic, for any reason, ever gets a "so important that it's exempted from having to be referenced normally" pass. And Shankar2001 is incorrect, as well, about how easy it is for diplomats in "first world" countries to get over GNG: even with many more news outlets to help support notability, diplomats in Canada, Australia, the United States and the UK do still frequently get deleted for not actually receiving the necessary degree of coverage. (Speaking as a Canadian, trust me: even in Canada, the only diplomatic postings that are guaranteed to always have a GNG pass are our ambassadors to the US, the UN and France, and our high commissioner to the UK — and even then it's got more to do with the way those plum positions are typically used to reward retiring politicians who had already passed WP:NPOL anyway than it does with actually getting very much coverage as ambassadors.) Furthermore, Wikipedia's sourcing rules do not restrict us to English language sources — if you can find Sinhalese or Tamil language RSes that properly support notability, then you are allowed to use them. So Wikipedia's reliable sourcing rules are not causing a systemic bias issue in favour of anglophone nations when it comes to the notability of diplomats, because Wikipedia's reliable sourcing rules do not limit us to anglophone sources.
The references present here, however, are not about Balasubramaniam, but merely provide glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can source him over WP:GNG, but there is not, and correctly should not be, any automatic notability freebie for diplomats in the absence of sufficient sourceability. Diplomats are still real people whose lives and reputations can be harmed if we eff up, which is precisely why we can't grant them a special exemption from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voodoo Glow Skulls. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpile![edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voodoo Glow Skulls, the band. I find absolutely nothing to suggest that this EP has nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. More broadly, the band itself is notable, despite the current largely-unreferenced nature of the article; there's plenty of material that can be mined for article improvement. Some further examination of the large number of bluelinked releases of various types is perhaps warranted, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. An article that shouldn't have been created but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shima Nesari Haghighi Fard[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Music Awards[edit]

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

These awards, despite a long history, do not seem to be notable. A Google search gives quite a few passing mentions of the "X also won an Independent Music Award" (with some false positives thrown in), but no significant coverage of the awards themselves. The best I found is this rehashed press release. There's so little content beyond lists of winners and judges that I can't even tell if there's an award ceremony, and no sources available to improve the article. Huon (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First 3 pages of Google results included [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Multiple reliable sources from multiple countries covering the awards means they're notable. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Michig, I'm pretty sure the AIM Independent Music Awards that currently are covered in the Association of Independent Music article are not the same as the ones sponsored by Music Resource Group - those five Google hits are some of the false positives I mentioned. Huon (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. MRG IMAs != AIM IMAs. !vote struck. --Michig (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to promote the subject. Notability is very suspect as the article states: "...created in 1999 by Music Resource Group (MRG)". This is a recent, possibly entirely PR driven award, created by an entity which is itself non notable. The content of the article is equally unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's little to no third party sources about this award and there is no indication that it is notable. The content is possibly a duplicate of the website as well, so WP:NOTSTATS applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was about to vote keep based on this, before I realised that the source was actually about "AIM Independent music awards" which is a different award. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Boockvor[edit]

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

No claim of notability in the article. Melaen (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a trace of notability.Vincelord (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven was born November 18, 1942 (age 73), New York City, NY He is married to Broadway actress: Denise Pence (m. 1973). They were the real life inspiration for the characters Christine and Al in "A Chorus Line" Movies: He was an actor in Jesus Christ Superstar Nominations: he was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnonetwo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this person passes WP:ENTERTAINER. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article doesn't even make an assertion of any kind of notability, merely that he is a performer, choreographer and assistant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2004[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:GNG. Not notable. The mother article, Miss Tourism Queen International had been deleted. This pageant is different from Miss Tourism International. This was the PROD rationale by Richie Campbell. I removed the PROD since it the article was previously deleted via the PROD process and recreated. I took that as a sign that it was contested. The mother article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism Queen International -- GB fan 12:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject not notable. The parent article and all other annual editions of the pageant in Wiki were deleted.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- either promotional or fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Devi Excellence Award[edit]

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

A local award at one college. No evidence of any notability . No refs provided. Earlier PROD removed by creator . Fails WP:GNG would qualify for speedy delete if appropriate category was available. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Wikipedia article appears to be the only mention found in a Google search for "Bharati Devi Excellence Award". The school's website doesn't even mention the award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Dungri[edit]

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

Delete. Claims made in the article cannot be verified from the source. Source mentioned is primary. Unless further reliable sources are provided, this article is not notable and should be deleted. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A simple Google search results in many RS. Some of them: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. There are also some Gbooks hits for this temple. Again I see the absence of WP:BEFORE. Anup [Talk] 00:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of attractions in Jaipur. Despite so many google hits the encyclopedic content won't be much to have standalone article after all unsourced content is removed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a second look? Replaced unsourced contents with sourced ones, and it looks like a decent stub. Anup [Talk] 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS given by Anup support its notability.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't really evaluate some of the added sources, but it looks notable enough and the nomination doesn't really address notability, just article quality. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains many reliable sources that prove its significance. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandia Mujaddidia Najmiya Riyaziya[edit]

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

Delete. Lacks reliable sources; only source provided is dead link. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete, the source is reliable, the link is not dead the only thing is that every one of wikipedia admin users cant understand urdu. As a part of wikipedia user I assure you I have visited the place and have searched & verified all the details. Rest is up to you guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasim001 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only link / source provided is a dead link. It does not matter if you have personally visited the place or not, but the article needs to pass the GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How are you saying its a dead link Aasim001 (talk) talk 10:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Do yourself a favor and just click on that link. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Arun, I guess you are feeling irritated with the discussion, on the page 25 you will all the details. The website is not designed in that way it could redirect it to page no 25, you have to go to that page by clicking next.User talk:Aasim001 10:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no idea about what you are trying to say. When click on the URL, the response I get is "Service Unavailable HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable". I am not concerned about what the website was designed to do, but the least it should do is function. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dont know whats the problem at your end but at my end I am able to open that link. User talk:Aasim001 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be something on your end of the server, AKS.9955. I get a page titled شجرہِ طیبہ نقشبندیہ‎, together with a browsable book (كليدرحمت‎). Anyways, the current article is a duplicate of the list at Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi, where it should remain, so here is a delete and redirect from me. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear HyperGaruda, you are saying it right to delete and redirect but the complete list in not on the page Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi, complete list is on Naqshbandia Mujaddidia Najmiya Riyaziya, please check & advice. User talk:Aasim001 05:04, 06 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. one more thing i want to say, this page is needed to show the complete spiritual lineage of this golden chain. on the page

Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi i cant post the whole spiritual lineage that's why i need a separate page for it. any decision which is made would be appreciated. User talk:Aasim001 05:00, 07 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "complete" list has two additional persons, Syed Amin Ahmad Hasnaini Mujadaddi and Syed Sarim Riyaz Hasnaini Mujadaddi, who do not appear in the presented sources. Only 37 individuals are mentioned on pages 25-29 of http://www.ghuncha-e-marfat.org/stn.html, with Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi Mujadaddi being the final one. In other words, the "complete" list is original research and should be deleted. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be on the wikipedia like other golden naqshbandi chain, the book cant be reprinted with the updated names day by day but you can find all the mention names on http://www.ghuncha-e-marfat.org/mm.html (its has got all the names till now). we all are working for wikipedia foundation to make it a place for true & accurate information. Thanks User talk:Aasim001 06:, 49 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete This is one of the clearest cases I've seen in a while. There's only a single, questionable source for a list of names, most of which refer to people without articles of their own. This is a major fail of WP:GNG and there isn't even enough in the article or basic subject for the discussion to move beyond that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now i vote for to delete this page at the earliest. User talk:Aasim001 07:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crons[edit]

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

My PROD was removed with the sole basis that the listed source is enough but I examined these and I found nothing but company-supplied information, PR and trivial coverage, and my own searches at Pittsburgh newspapers, Forbes (this one has become PR-navigated as it is), NewYorkTimes and I'll note that the one source listed as NYT is simply a profile focusing with him instead and his career and background, it's not substantial coverage about the company, and this article is showing the classic signs of simply being part of a PR campaign. I'll note this was G11 speedy deleted once before as it is. There is no inherited notability from its local partnerships and business activities as several companies have or have had this but it's not an automatic convincing for an article, especially if there are PR intentions here, which this one has, therefore I would not have accepted from AfC if there was such an insinuation of it. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The New York Times
~~Forbes~~
The Huffington Post (has three paragraphs of non-interview content in the lead)

Actually looking athe Forbes', it's another of their blog entries. I know you know better than that, so this suggests you did a linkdump rather than looking at them - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the Forbes source I posted above, such sources are allowed to be used, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Also note that the article is written by a Forbes staff writer (it states "Forbes Staff"). I read the article before posting it here. Please assume good faith. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good evidence of notability, and AGF does not mean assuming you have done something you strongly appear not to have done - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the tick mark in the Forbes article next to where it states "Forbes Staff", right after the author's name. It is possible that the tick mark is there to indicate that the writer is verified by Forbes as a staff writer. I'm not sure why you missed that the article is attributed to a staff writer, but it's right there in plain English. Sorry, but you come across as dismissive, as though if you're looking for a way to disqualify sources from the start, to the point that you may be overlooking matters and resorting to making ad hominen arguments instead. However, I hope I'm wrong, and hope that you can try to assume good faith in the future after this discussion has concluded. I admit that the Forbes article is short, but it does provide some coverage, and be sure to also listen to the 4:44 length video interview that accompanies the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice this: Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. There is little journalistic oversight and no fact checking. Forbes/sites are hardly used for supporting facts, much less notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comes across as a bit grey, the contributor is a staff writer, but it has this disclaimer. As such, in the interest of fairness, I have struck the Forbes article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See below in the box for some source examples. I read the sources too. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply suggesting Keep because the sources were supposedly examined is not the same thing in that my nominations actually mentioned these sources as it is, and as for the ones not mention, they still apply in the listed concerns, for example, the HuffPost unsurprisingly is an interview from start to finish, and the man himself advertises the company, so that one is certainly not convincing, substantial or significant. Simply existing as a news source is not the same thing as convincing especially if it's in fact simply republished PR. The Forbes is still trivial and my analysis above it covers it since it's simply a fluff-puff about its company partnerships, in an entire 3 paragraph thin "article" , so that's certainly not substance if there was hardly journalism effprts to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I read the sources, rather than "supposedly" or "...done something you strongly appear not to have done". These types of WP:ASPERSIONS are problematic, quite impolite and also inappropriate; they go against the grain of working collegially with others in the spirit of building an encyclopedia. If others don't agree with the depth of coverage in the sources I provided, that's just fine, but it's quite poor and sophomoric to second guess whether or not a person read them. I am an administrator on English Wikipedia and I would never post any commentary intended to be misleading, ever. Period. Also, my keep !vote stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this company appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on this New York Times piece, which provides WP:SIGCOV, as well as this USA Today piece and this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Safehaven86: Thanks for providing the USA Today source. I didn't find that one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll note again that the sources listed above are the same exact ones listed before, and my nomination analysis actually mentions them and, then as for the USAToday, it's simply a few thin paragraphs that never actually focus with the company itself, they're simply a mere tossed few sentences, so it's not at all close to substance or convincing. If that's the best there is, it only actually emphasizes the needs for deletion since, we have as it is the advertising state of mind and intents, so actually listing other sources of the sort, actually make "improvements" non-existent and contrary to the listed concerns. SwisterTwister talk 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are more sources (in addition to those I posted above) that provide coverage about Crons. More evidence that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Pitt player's apparel company takes aim at the nutrition bar market". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"West View company serves 100-pound snack at mission". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
"Come ready: Pat Cavanaugh shapes Crons around his own story". Smart Business.

Comment - The above sources are still thin and unconvincing in that they are still focus with company quotes and other information only the company itself would, especially since their own activities are focused in those articles. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – To consolidate, below are the sources I am basing my keep !vote above upon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The New York Times
"Former Pitt player's apparel company takes aim at the nutrition bar market". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"West View company serves 100-pound snack at mission". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
"Come ready: Pat Cavanaugh shapes Crons around his own story". Smart Business.
The Huffington Post (per non-interview content in the lead)

Comment - These links above are in fact the same ones mentioned earlier, so if this is honestly the best that could be found, it actually shows how serious this article is with not having actual convincing coverage, so simply repeating them (let alone with no actual anaylsis) also speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical "corporate spam": a cross between an investor prospectus and a product brochure. Sources offered above are local (Post Gazette), non RS (triblive.com, HuffPo) and / or offer trivial mentions / interviews. Nothing to build out an encyclopedia article from. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by Special:Contributions/ComeReady with no other contributions, so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article as it violates the core principal that the content is created by volunteer editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To then note, examining the earlier comments (now since removed from this currently set nomination) in the history logs, the Keep votes have not at all actually considered the damning affects accepting such an advertisement can cause, and instead, they have literally simply suggested "Hey, there's sources!" yet there's been specific analysis about the listed sources. Once we start choosing to completely push the deletion of advertisements aside, it shows we are finally damned as an encyclopedia which can be taken seriously, everything from this article and its involved accounts have shown it was one thing and that is paid advertising, and no one has actually given a damn to fix it, therefore if we're going to simply keep because PR sources have been listed, that is self-explanatory, something of which (the fact of paid advertising and the signs suggesting and showing it) the Keep votes have not mentioned or considered at all. It troubles the encyclopedia considerably when there have been analyses showing the sources are PR and showing explicitly how, where and why, yet additional PR sources are listed, this shows how not only is there literally nothing else better than PR, it's so blatant. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Delete discussion. Nothing is here. Except promotions and promotions. Light2021 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple in-depth reliable sources found by Northamerica1000. These are more than sufficient to meet the notability threshold per WP:GNG. Notability coupled with the WP:POTENTIAL for article improvement suggests keeping the article. Regarding the discussion here and at other recent corporate AfDs, I explicitly reject the assertion that all business journalism is PR bunk. All reliable sources have potential context and framing issues and should be considered on a case by case basis. There are enough basic uncontroversial facts to glean from the RS above to write a short reasonably neutral article on the subject. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets ORGDEPTH with the sources by NorthAmerica. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the mentions are trivial, and insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as the coverage does not address the topic directly and in detail. For example, the USA Today coverage is largely a name check around the company's promotional campaign:

"While Crons is mostly a high school brand, the high-profile exposure in the NCAA tournament could help it score more college clients."

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript fees[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of unreferenced data. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A table of unreferenced original research ("collected by calling various universities") on current tariffs for a service, lacking encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a purpose of an encyclopedia to give this type of information. Even giving a school's fee, or the price of anything, in its own article would probably not be appropriate unless a secondary source had cited it as being a notable feature. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is Not a Directory, and this is in any case pure Original Research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think I've seen a more blatant case of WP:NOTDIR. (BTW, DO we have a Wiki project that this could be transferred to?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Doroshkevich[edit]

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

Delete: apparent lack of notability in his field. Quis separabit? 21:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS citations adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning keep~~ Pls see below: Original comment: I believe the subject passes GNG, despite (possibly) low citation count. Here's the Google books preview. Given how often the subject is mentioned in contemporary English-language language sources, it's highly likely that additional coverage is available offline and / or in Russian, also taking into account that his career took place in the pre-internet era. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the important parts here are actually WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF and none of them are convinced since there's simply nothing significant, therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - false information, possibly a hoax, at best puffery; Arno Penzias and his team found the cosmic background radiation, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work. I've met Penzias, and professor, you're no Penzias. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also personally knew Ralph Alpher, who had done theoretical work in that field. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete on second thoughts. Could be recreated in the future if anyone is willing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment. Despite Bearian's brash comment above, we are not dealing with a hoax here. The source cited in the article (the paper of Zel'dovich and Novikov) is not independent because Novikov was a co-aothor of the paper of Doroshkevich being discussed there, but the story itself is both well-known and is well-documented by multiple reliable sources completely independent from Doroshkevish and Novikov, and from Zel'dovich's Moscow school in general. There are quite a few western books, e.g. here [24][25], [26],[27], [28],[29],[30], that recount the history of the Doroshkevish-Novikov paper, and explain the context of its relation to the work of Penzais and Wilson, in substantial detail. The above references are just a small sample of what's available on this topic in the literature. However, as far as notability of Doroshkevish is concerned, we may still be dealing with a WP:BIO1E situation -- I am not sure. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is usually cited as "A.G. Doroshkevish", and a GScholar search for "A.G. Doroshkevish" gives an h-index of about 34, which is pretty high. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found another source on the French Wikipedia article and used it to expand this one. It has impeccable credentials both for its (famous western physicist) editors and publisher and confirms that this story is no hoax. Doroshkevich and Novikov did indeed discover the background radiation (after Shmaonov did even earlier but was forgotten), prior to Penzias and Wilson. Another source that I didn't use (because Doroshkevich was one of the authors) also mentions rumors of another prediscovery in Japan. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- switching back to keep as the article has been expanded with new sources added. It's an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in view of the newly improved state of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hookup culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is more of a personal essay than an objective article. It is clearly part of a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to publish numerous articles promoting a point of view on the issue of adolescent sexuality. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookup culture in 2013, and a number of editors thoght it should be deleted, while others thought it should be substanmtially rewritten to address the concerns. The closing administrator wrote "This is a clear consensus that this article has a number of quality issues. There seems to be a weak consensus that these issues should be fixed via editing rather than deletion." However, after more than three years, the suggested rewritign has not taken place, and the article is still an essay existing to express a point of view. It is essentially a fork of such articles as Adolescent sexuality and Adolescent sexuality in the United States. If anyone has suitable content on the topic of Hookup culture, and can write about it from a neutral point of view, and if for some reason that content does not seem suitable for inclusion in one of the other existing articles, then it may be suitable to create a new article on this subject, but the present article is unsuitable. I am unconvinced that there is a need for a separate article on this topic, but if we are to have one then someone can Blow it up and start over: the suggestion of improving this article has not been taken up in three years, and probably isn't going to be taken up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article started out as a POV fork of Adolescent sexuality in the United States, and, despite spirited discussion on the talk page, has never really progressed beyond that point. I believed at one point that the article was fixable, but I've come to think that maybe I was naive. The article would need to be rewritten from scratch to fix the soapboxing, cherry-picking, and POV-pushing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Hook-up culure is not unique to adolescents so a merge or redict would be misleading. It would also suggest that adolescents and adults are somehow of a different species or something. Yes, the article has not been rewritten but the reason for that is that it hasn;t been tagged, nor have invocations been made to the appropriae talk pages and noticeboards. Sufficient effort has so far not been exhausted to opt for the most extreme option, which would be deletion. 79.67.71.120 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JamesBWatson and NinjaRobotPirate, if I remembering correctly, the article was rewritten (as in substantially downsized and tweaked). Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 1, Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2 and the discussions currently on the article talk page show what happened. Also, the article is currently the target of an upcoming WP:Student assignment, and looking at the sources that HollyElizHart (one of the upcoming student editors) listed on the talk page indicates to me that a new version after the deletion of this one would not be all that different. I would rather student editors build on the current one than have to be guided to make one that complies with our policies and guidelines. It's often that our students editors need to be guided on the way our articles should be, and that their edits need to be tweaked. The Hookup culture topic is WP:Notable, and so I won't vote for its deletion. On a side note: It's very likely that the above IP is the editor who created the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Jill Stein that the topic was notable, and it still got deleted as a POV fork. I didn't think it was a POV fork, but apparently I got outvoted. I think this article is a POV fork, but I guess we'll see if I get outvoted again. I don't really know what the students are going to do, but their talk page posts give me more hope than Illuminato's ever did. One of them posted both negative and positive statistics from a source, which is something that Illuminato would never have done. I'd be surprised if there weren't a cherry shortage in 2013 due to all the cherry-picking going on. But if they're going to work off this POV fork, it'll simply be a slightly better POV fork. The only way to properly fix this article is start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am never very keen on arguments that something should be kept because it's part of a student assignment, or something of the sort. If an article doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards, then it should not be kept, no matter who is working on it. I also note the suggestion that "the new version after the deletion of this one would not be all that different". If the current version does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards, then encouraging students (or anyone else) to create a new version which is not much different is probably encouraging them to create a new version which does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards; how is that helpful? It is neither helpful to Wikipedia, as it perpetuates a bad article, nor is it helpful to the students, who learn wrong ideas about what is acceptable. The proposal to delete the article should be discussed on the merits of the article, not on the basis of speculation about some possible new version which may or may not be better but which does not yet exist, nor on the basis of making allowances because of who is working on it. Giving students a chance to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia is good, but distorting our standards for them isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article being kept because it's part of a student assignment wasn't really my argument. That the topic is notable, which is why students will be working on it (and/or have added to it in the past), is my argument. I entertained the idea of a future article because that idea is entertained in your initial post above. I'm familiar with the hookup culture literature and I'm not sure what kind of difference is expected by blowing up the article and rewriting it from scratch. What is in the article is pretty much just about everything there is to state about the topic. Whatever sources can be used to help balance out any perceived biases is obviously a good thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our article is, well, pretty terrible. But that's true of a lot of articles, and AFD is not cleanup; this isn't TNT-level defective. The topic is clearly notable, and not directly a duplicate of something like Adolescent sexuality in the United States. How do I know? Well, for one thing, there are no shortage of high-quality sources:

Garcia, Justin R.; Reiber, Chris; Masset, Sean G.; Merriwether, Ann M. (2012). "Sexual hookup culture: A review". Review of General Psychology. 16 (2): 161–176. doi:10.1037/a0027911. -- This is a literature review in a highly prestigious journal which confirms that hookup culture, while most prevalent among adolescents, is not restricted to them.

Monto, Martin A.; Carey, Anna G. (2014). "A New Standard of Sexual Behavior? Are Claims Associated With the 'Hookup Culture' Supported by General Social Survey Data?". Journal of Sex Research. 51 (6): 605–615. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.906031. -- Here's a contra article, which suggests from survey data that at least some hookup culture claims in college student populations are inflated and that the trend may be merely towards more social discussion of casual sex rather than more actual practice of it.

Aubrey, Jennifer Stevens; Smith, Siobhan E. (2013). "Development and Validation of the Endorsement of the Hookup Culture Index". Journal of Sex Research. 50 (5): 435–448. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.637246. -- And here's an effort to create a quantifiable index for how (and why) individuals endorse hookup culture, complete with survey data to support the validity of the metric.

I could go on. Social science stuff, broadly, isn't my area of interest. But writing about other topics in Wikipedia, I'd kill to have page after page of scholarly articles in the top end journals in the relevant fields. To say nothing of the several major books published on the topic, plus attention from more conventional journalistic sources (like The New York Times). Does this article need to be improved? Clearly. Does it need to be better delineated from other articles on similar, but not synonymous, topics? Naturally. Those are editorial processes. But I cannot see a cause for deletion here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, screw it. I struck out my vote. I don't care so much that I'm going to make a huge deal out of this. If consensus is against a TNT delete, so be it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Reforma Al-Islah[edit]

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

No sources given, and no notability since a newspaper itself doesn't give it such notability. Only a minor ethnic group newspaper with no trascendence in Chilean history. Sfs90 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an article on this in the spanish wikipedia called La Reforma Al-Islah (periódico), but is almost the same as this article, and is also up for deletion. ps. appears to have been created by same person the previous day. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh. Nobody here?) Delete. Completely unsourced, failing WP:V. Sandstein 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing Sandstein... Am not able to find sources. Should be a soft delete and close. Lourdes 16:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossible to verify, and unlikely to be sourced, since it allegedly was in print 1930-1941. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Delete. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, this is an article about an organization with no strong claim to passing WP:ORG and no strong reliable sourcing -- as written, the article basically amounts to "this is an organization that exists", and the sourcing is almost entirely to primary sources (own webpage, web pages of directly affiliated member companies, press releases, etc.) and glancing namechecks of its existence in media articles about other things. Not a single source here, in fact, actually constitutes substantive reliable source coverage about the organization -- and nearly all of it is simply reference-bombing the unexceptional statement that "the chamber promotes supplier diversity". (And since the creator has been throwing around accusations that the articles are being challenged for homophobic reasons rather than "non-compliance with Wikipedia policies around notability and reliable sourcing" reasons, I will once again remind everyone involved that I am an out gay man myself.) Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canadian equivalent of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Canadian equivalent of something else" is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage about it — especially when the something else is also so poorly written and sourced that it's also up for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, with no prejuedice against recreation. Currently it fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable organization. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce was just kept in its own afd. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH at this time. There are quite a few passing mentions, but nothing much about the organisation itself. This is something which might have a claim of significance but at the moment, not enough secondary coverage to write an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pearson (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Pearson is registered to play for Farnborough F.C., a team in the Southern League Division One Central, which is not recognized as a fully professional league for England (it comes in at level 7 in the English league system) (see WP:FPL). No significant coverage of Pearson to be found outside of the minor mention in the team's own website of his single appearance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable footballer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played for a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina Cheer[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Most of the refs are her own web-site or blog. The Huffington Post ref simply notes what she does as a blog contributor. Many of the rest are adverts for herself or instagram or similar sites. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fitness consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM of non-notable subject. Article is single-purpose account who has made ridiculous promotional edits like this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azakhana Kalan Sirsi[edit]

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

In principle, I could have prodded this, since the article is incomprehensible (borderline gibberish), and I could not find any reliable sources describing the subject. However, I assume that the organization (or building?) might be notable, and may be someone knowledgeable about Indian topics may find some sources - or confirm it is nonsense. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "azakhana" is a synonym of "hussainiya". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much everything online (for example, this) sources back to this site, which is privately operated, has no editorial control, and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. In any case, this is indeed a building (a type of religious congregation hall, separate from a mosque), but I don't think there's any real likelihood of it being a notable one. The associated mosque, Khana-e-haq, has no article, and I'm not confident that sources exist to support one. Taking the non-RS site on face value, the founder of this hussainiya (and the aforementioned mosque) is Syed Hasan Arif Naqvi, who also doesn't appear to be notable (and whose impact appears to be strictly local). I can find no reliable sources for the claim that this is the oldest (or even one of the oldest) imambara in India. It is possible, as is sometimes the case with Indian topics, that the necessary sources are merely not easily available electronically, or in English. But at this point, I think the burden of proof is on advocates of retention to provide sources that indicate notability, and to ensure their reliability and independence (ideally, sources with authorship outside of Sirsi's Naqvi family). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Could not find a single reliable source for this thing (tried Gnews, Gbooks, JSTOR, WP:INDAFD search engine). What is "AH", in "734 AH"? Did they mean, AD? Anup [Talk] 17:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AH is anno Hegirae, an abbreviation for the Islamic calendar. The given year is the equivalent of 1333/34 AD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) See Hijri year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, both of you!! (it's quite a bit math btw, AH = 1.030684 × (AD − 621.5643), AD = 0.970229 × AH + 621.5643). Anup [Talk] 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a postgraduate student in mathematics at the ripe old age of ... getting on for three times the age of most postgraduate students, but I recognise when it's better to search the Internet for a look-up table rather than use a formula. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a definite claim of notability, but there don't seem to be independent, trusted sources confirming that claim. There are numerous religious places in India for every religion on Earth; if this one is so historic, there would be more sources (and reliable ones) confirming the claims. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried even the videos of regional news channels. I did find a private pr agency's videos but they are unreliable. Fails notability. Lourdes 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Munde Kamaal De. Sandstein 10:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi Gulati[edit]

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

Delete. Extremely dubious article given connections with self-promotional Vipul Narigara and the permanent block placed on its main contributor who is believed to have been operating multiple accounts for the purpose of self-promotion. Note also the multiple issues for which this has already been tagged by another editor. Bahnhof St Gallen (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Munde Kamaal De: It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on her. She has acted into only two films and has received some coverage for the same. Two films fail to give her edge over our WP:NACTOR criteria. However, looking at the quality and diversity of coverage for first film, Munde Kamaal De, ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]), I think, it is justifiable to create a redirect for now. Anup [Talk] 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Quest[edit]

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

No indication of notability or that it passes GNG or NGAMES. A search turns up only its GameJolt page. Jbh ^Talk 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP: CRYSTAL, we need considerable sourcing in order to support an article on a game that doesn't exist yet. This article has no such sourcing. Indeed, the article's mystic-toned statement "The game will be released in the future on Windows and Mac." sounds like a deliberate jab at WP: CRYSTAL.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on what we know now. I can't find news sources showing that this game is notable. Blythwood (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage of this game, though there seems to be another Infinity Quest for mobile that got a press release or two. It's probably too soon for an article. For smaller games, it's very difficult to get enough coverage to warrant an article before they're released. When it's released, we can take another look. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LG V series[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, OR? Not extensive enough for article ViperSnake151 Talk 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a few sources have used this phrase in passing when discussing notable LG phones with model numbers including "V", I do not see any sources that devote significant coverage to the "V series" as a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Grand Lodge of New York. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Triangles Inc.[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet our notability threshold. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input is desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Grand Lodge of New York, of which it's a youth group. Not much out there, but enough for a paragraph in the New York Freemasons article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Website for Organization of Triangles can be found at OOTNY.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.97.195 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend, and leave behind a redirect from Organization of Triangles (i.e. without the trailing Inc) pointing to Grand Lodge of New York; that's a much better search term. A selective merge of just the key points would make more sense than dropping in the full text. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Title[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No sourcing found, no reviews of albums anywhere, just placeholder album listings and lyrics databases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking very borderline from what I found. The band were signed to Universal for one album, and I found an Allmusic bio ([36]) and a couple of reviews ([37], [38]), and some local coverage ([39]) - if someone can find more then I'd be happy to keep. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add to Michig's sources a PopMatters review ([40]), a short review from Melodic.net ([41]), a review from a Decatur, IL newspaper that's behind a paywall (but searching for the terms "The Working Title" and "About Face" reveals some content) ([42]), and the Alternative Press review mentioned in the lede of the current article (that's a paper magazine which hasn't digitized its holdings from as far back as 2003). Frustratingly, the album was reviewed by Absolute Punk, as the article also notes, but AP has deleted their entire history of news and reviews from before they switched to the name Chorus.FM. In any case, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the group acquired significant press attention in its heyday, passing WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. Scrapes through on what has been found. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources need to be applied to the article and some clean-up would not hurt, but the subject still passes with sufficient coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles:, @TheGracefulSlick: And these sources will add themselves magically, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer what was the point of that remark? The fact of the matter is the subject has enough coverage to pass for notability. An article should not be deleted just because someone failed to check for sources and take time to place them in the article when they ultimately decided to nominate an article for deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: The point I always make: everyone's willing to dig for sources, but no one's ever willing to actually put them in the fucking article. So then 5 years later it's still an unsourced pile of shit because everyone is expecting everyone else to do it. If you're not going to improve the article, then don't dig up the sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer I would be happy to improve the article, it is outside my usual realm of music, but I do not mind. I am clustered with other projects at the moment, but I will start working on it in my sandbox within the week. No reason to delete the article on your basis although I do partially agree with your point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OC Hit Factory[edit]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. Musicman048 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although the list of "associated" songwriters is impressive, I'm trying to work out if any of them actually have anything to do with OC Hit Factory. From what I can tell, the company is basically a songwriting camp for budding new artists, and it uses its association with Sony Music to invite Sony songwriters to make presentations once in a while. But none of those artists mentioned in the article appear to be directly employed by OC Hit Factory. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a promotional page for a business. It has had write ups in the LA Times and Orange Country Register--two solid sources--but the coverage is of the insignificant, local business promotion variety. AssociatIons with notable artists and businesses (i.e Sony) seem to be making the argument of WP:INHERIT as justification of earning a wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a page created for promotional purposes. This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. There is no clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Tanemusic (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attri clan[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no references, and a search brought up vague mentioning. Wikipedia:FAILN, specifically WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Otr500 (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khatarmal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources; fails WP:GNG. It's worrying that this survived its first AfD thanks to no one offering a comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the lack of participation this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Less Gay Love Tekno Party[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and little reliable source coverage to support it. With the exception of one (deadlinked) article in an alt-weekly, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to blogs, primary sources like their own website and the site of a company with which they had a direct sponsorship deal, a Flickr photostream and a Yelp listing -- which means we're at exactly zero for sources that can carry WP:GNG. And the only substantive claim of notability here is that one member went on to form another more notable band as a side project, which means nothing here actually passes NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the lack of participation this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indrek Erm[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE; only minimal, trivial mentions found in independent sources. WP:CREATIVE 4c is not met without evidence for the significance of those awards. —swpb^T 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the awards from Cultural Endowment of Estonia appear somewhat significant: link. Not sure about the rest. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Second Life. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life in popular culture[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not TVTropes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was a source that mainly discussed Second Life's popular culture, this article wouldn't be grounds for deletion due to the fact that all it can offer is WP:INDISCRIMINATE info editorEهեইдအ😎 11:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of random trivia doth not an article make. Perhaps the "various popular culture mediums" can, however, see far enough into the future to detect signs of impending notability. Back here on planet earth, suitable sources are lacking, the NYT article (the same one is shown twice) notwithstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Life. Lots of the items are not really popular culture, but anything with a source could be mentioned in the main article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to a Merge along the efforts that I put into merging parkour in popular culture: Selectively merge the content that has a) merit to the topic of Second Life and to the popular culture trivium in question and is b) reliably sourced in the connection between the topics and preferably c) the trivium has an article of its own e.g. "The feature film Beautiful Kate (2009) contains a scene where Rachel Griffiths' character demonstrates her avatar in Second Life to her brother (played by Ben Mendelsohn)" would not be merged because it is irrelevant to Second Life; "The feature film Gamer (2009) depicts an ultra-real parody of Second Life, called Society, in which players control real people, whose free will has been forfeit in exchange for being well paid." would not be merged because it has no source connecting it directly; "Peter Anghelides' novel Another Life (2007), based upon the television series Torchwood, features a Second Life-inspired virtual world called Second Reality ..." would not be merged because it has no article of its own; but "Redzone were credited by Wired and Reuters as the first band to tour in Second Life in February 2007, followed by Beyond the void as the first official rock band touring in Second Life (open PR, March 2007)." might be merge-able content because it meets all the criteria. I really should write an essay on the topic... --Izno (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are a few notable appearances of Second Life in the popular culture that can be sourced (The CSI episodes for example, I still remember the reaction to those), but as per WP:TRIVIA, only those that can be sourced to secondary sources should be included, which would likely trim this list significantly and make it a reasonable merge approach. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is definately notable aspects of this article but it shouldn't be its own article. It should be included in the main SL article. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not quite needing a split due to size, I would say, and I agree with Izno above. Yvarta (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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