The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My searches simply found nothing good to suggest improvement aside from some of the usual links. Definitely not outstanding, from what I see, as an actor and there are no good sources to establish a martial artist article. Not to mention, this orphaned article has not improved even in the slightest since starting in August 2008 and there are no signs of it happening. Notifying author Debonairjdj. SwisterTwistertalk 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator said - not outstanding. There is only a single ref and IMDB is not considered reliable. Does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No properly sourced indication notability as a martial artist, even less as a minor-league football player, and none at all as an actor. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists, football players, or actors. Trying out for a CFL team doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previous editors have pointed out, the article has no significant reliable independent coverage and there's nothing to show he meets any SNG. I also wonder about the accuracy of what's stated, especially in light of the lack of sources. I was left wondering how a Canadian from Trinidad won the European championship. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability at best, and clear promotionalism. Very little of the article is devoted to the association, but more to the industry in general. What is being promoted, as one might expect, is the industry, not the association , but that still is promotionalism. See , for example, all of section 2.
It's cited only to the organizations site. It reads like a copyvio as well, but I can't follow up on the details of a site in that language. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG It's worth noting I was going to nominate this but I consulted with Wikimandia who said it was notable including in Bulgaria. If you notice my thread at User talk:Wikimandia, I included listing the results I found. SwisterTwistertalk 23:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if it is notable in Bulgaria it is notable here. (which is not the same as saying that the Bulgarian WP found it notable--different WPs have different standards of notability; and also of promotionalism). But I see no evidence of that either: both this article and the Bulgarian WP article are sourced only to its web site. As I said at the afd, whether it is copied from that web site is something I cannot determine--I only suspect it from the nature of the content, or I would have used speedy G12. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as copy/paste promotional advert from official website, article's sole source. Couldn't be clearer. Quis separabit? 21:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:PROMO advert of non-notable organization, only ref is their own website Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My searches found absolutely nothing and it seems to have unsurprisingly been started by the band themselves. Either this band existed and it was very local and low-key or it never actually existed, but either way this article from November 2005 is unacceptable. Subsequently, once this is deleted and a redirect can be restored to The Program (disambiguation). SwisterTwistertalk 22:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable band, shot through with highly promotional language. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:PROMO advert, no claim of notability in the article, unsourced Kraxler (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band that never charted; no other special reason to be called notable. --Slashme (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BAND, the subject has not been covered by enough non-trivial publications/media. As it stands now, the page only references the band's Soundcloud and Youtube pages, and through my searches, I haven't been able to find enough coverage for this group to merit their own article. Upjav (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of sources: they reached #10 on the German Club Charts with their song, "Promises" ([1]), and the same song was on a songlist for the show Scream ([2]). That's all I found, and I don't think it meets our notability threshold, so I !vote to delete. Nomader (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the routine coverage and the cruft that exist don't amount to notability, as defined by the relevant policies. - BiruitorulTalk 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not entirely sure if this company is notable as the article says it built the first PVC plant in South Korea and I found an article saying the parent company Hanwha is the nation's 10th largest conglomerate of its country. The best my searches found were here, here, here and here. At best, it seems it may be notable especially in Korea but from the article's current state and no outstandingly good sources, I'm not sure. SwisterTwistertalk 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent company's article Hanwha, stand-alone article not warranted, under the circumstances. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Hanwha: not enough to say about this company on its own. --Slashme (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no outstanding issues raised at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I previously proded this for notability issues but the creating editor removed the prod and all the prose. Now with no prose t is useless and even with the prose the notability is still a problem.ww2censor (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Article is about settlement having population more than 6000. Every settlement is notable. Currently article is blank, but give me some time I will improve it to acceptable level. --Human3015Send WikiLove 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, already well done. I've struck out my nomination as it is obviously notable. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a verified settlement, and by long-standing precedent all settlements are notable. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 12:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable elementary and middle school. No substantial information included in article - just an external link Calvinballing (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be a no-brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 August 2015 Update: Justification: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES plus lack of anything that would support notability under WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or any other relevant criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Update: redirect to parent organization or locality article is okay if target artictle mentions this school or is edited to do so. In case of redirect I am ok with keeping history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable school; no entitlement to remain as it is not a high school or college. One line joke of an article. Quis separabit? 21:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any proof of notability for this school through search engines, given that there is no proof currently on the article itself. Per above, I am okay with redirecting as well. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an entry. It certainly exists but that isn't enough to pass notability guidelines. On a side note, a quick look at the original editor's article creations shows that this looks to be a common issue with his articles, but in all fairness these were mostly created before guidelines became more strict. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - There's not a page for the Jim Conover and no other move target and my searches found nothing aside from passing mentions and a few news mentions. SwisterTwistertalk 04:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in the article. --Slashme (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Book lacks sources that indicate notability. TheGGoose (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BUT the closing admin should presume that I would have switched to "neutral" if any credible evidence of notability arises after my most recent edit to this AFD but before it closes, and any admin closing a deletion review that I did not participate in should presume I would change my recommendation to "soft-delete, no objection to re-creation" if such evidence arises after this AFD closes. Feel free to {{ping}} me if and when such evidence arises. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwistertalk 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything, per above. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search but ultimately this is just your run of the mill self-published/vanity novel in that it never gained the coverage necessary to pass NBOOK. Given that it was released in 2010, it's unlikely that this will pass notability guidelines any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is either a non-notable neologism and it should be deleted, or it is a common-enough phrase that it should be transwikied to wikt:kitchen table science or wikt:kitchen-table science and the material not suitable for Wiktionary trimmed out. My hunch is that it isn't common enough to belong to Wiktionary Recommended close: Delete, without objection to temporary userficiaton for the purpose of trans-wiki'ing to Wiktionary, contingent on the term meeting Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion at the time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reference for the statement about the Massachusetts Academy of Science. "Kitchen table science" or "kitchen science" has been around for a long time and can refer to the science behind cooking, learning to cook, simple general science experiments for kids. In the absence of references that show that the definition in the article is a major meaning, I don't think it should go into Wiktionary either. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't belong here, as above. If it's notable, it's a dictionary entry, and if it's not, nuke it. PianoDan (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest improvement. Pinging Jllm06 for comment. SwisterTwistertalk 04:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above reasons.Jllm06 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at will, of course Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No notability is known about this fictional neighborhood in the animated series The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron. May it's never heard or defined in the show. This will have to be deleted or become a redirect. TheGGoose (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero links in, no sources, and not even correctly written; it would be the 'Ivy Hills neighborhood of Retroville' if anyone bothered to care about this snippet of cruft. Nate•(chatter) 18:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron or simply delete as my searches found nothing aside from show-related websites thus no good sources and signs of improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:CRYSTAL sourced from one company's marketing puff. Anything that needs to be said is already said in their article at JP Aerospace. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per speculation and crystal ball, just some marketing idea most of the article doesnt deal with facts just general ideas. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify the sourcing, this company has been promoting its dream for over a decade and has achieved some cover in "what-if" related media. Everything traces back to the same source, I have found absolutely nothing of any independent substance (e.g. null return from JSTOR, nothing from NASA) to suggest notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it gets re written as a general speculative approach (in which case I wonder about the notability), it should be deleted. The fact that it is not in the least a straight forward method does not helps, either. Baldusi (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing of benefit here, just pie-in-the-sky daydreams and marketing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this appears to be a minor and not well known band with my searches finding nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, only ref is their own website, web searches turn up social media, youtube, and sales outlets, no coverage Kraxler (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some reviews to at least confirm it exists but not anything to suggest improvement here. SwisterTwistertalk 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found good and all signs seem to suggest this no longer exists thus with no improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Inviting tagger MelbourneStar for comment. SwisterTwistertalk 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I concur with the editors above; I tagged this article with multiple issues some 3 years ago, almost nothing has changed since. To the scrapheap it goes! —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page appears to be a sandbox in the main namespace, so my first thought was that it should be moved somewhere (e.g. Talk:First-time user experience/sandbox). But it's a page which seems to largely duplicate material from First-time user experience: it seems to have been copied from an older version of the article (Special:Permalink/528867443). This sandbox page was created several months ago by a user who has not edited since a couple of days after they created the page; shortly after creating the page, they completely overhauled First-time user experience, so maybe they were a newbie that thought a copy of the older version needed to be / should be kept for archive/backup purposes. I can't find any relevant policies that deal with this situation, nor a CSD criterion that seems like it would apply, but it seems to me to be common sense that this should be deleted. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, as Number 57 says it is already sufficiently covered in the article on the general election. The title is wrong anyway, it should be Burma, not Myanmar, and definitely not "Myanma". Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, overwhelming consensus, in accordance with policies such as WP:COMMONNAME was to use Myanmar so that comment is wrong and irrelevant to the discussion. I have requested a WP:RM#TR to Myanmar by-elections, 2014. AusLondonder (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Myanma general election, 2015#Cancellation of by-elections. This article has a little more info, and the target has just a short mention, but the (non-)event needs to be put in context a little more. Stand-alone article is not warranted, since the election did not take place. And, yes, also in the target, it should be "Myanmar", with -r. Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has only just been deleted via PROD and recreated for no apparent reason. He has made no professional appearances and fails WP:GNG too. Spiderone 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Friendlies don't count as professional appearances. Spiderone 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference to the article to show it complies with WP:GNG. --Racklever (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other articles out there about him? I'm sure that one Daily Mail article isn't enough to pass WP:GNG although I will admit that I'm no expert. Spiderone 20:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Racklever: - the Daily Mail is not a RS and one source is insufficient for GNG. GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails gng, nsport --ℕℱ 18:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL because subject hasn't played in a fully professional league, and there's no evidence he's received enough non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. All the Daily Mail piece says about Mr Donnarumma is that he's 16, he's a goalkeeper, and he missed a penalty in a shootout in a pre-season friendly, i.e. he exists and he's registered with a well-known club. That isn't even remotely significant coverage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Playing in a friendly does not confer notability. Number57 23:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete this page? Donnaruma is not famous enough for you? lol, wikipedia lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.232.85 (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or Redirect to List of longest films. The films in this list are neither particularly long nor particularly short. Pburka (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete for now as although the article is at least neat and sourced thus it passes the first requirements but, considering there may not be better coverage for her, there's not much to improve and my searches found nothing better than some unfamiliar websites with browser. SwisterTwistertalk 04:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above; person just not important enough to justify an article being made for her. Yny501 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as insufficiently notable; clear COI. Quis separabit? 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Singapore Management University. While opinion was divided over this discussion, the rough consensus seems to be that the references provided do not quite rise to the level required by our notability guidelines. If the topic is not notable, our main choices are delete, redirect, and merge. Out of these, the arguments for merging were the most persuasive, given the relationship of SMU to its school of accounting, and the precedent of how other similar topics are covered on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 05:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, not notable in its own right, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Whilst I think deletion is the best option, I would accept a move back to draftspace, since I believe it was wrongly accepted at AFC, or a merge with Singapore Management University. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree it was wrongly moved to main space, but I doubt that evidence for notability will be found, so I think moving it back to draft space would be a waste of time. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move back to draft space. This should never have been accepted at AfC. Of the currently cited sources, several are mere directory listings. The Wharton school source just mentions, in a single sentence, that Wharton has a partnership with the SOA, which means Wharton isn't fully independent of them anyway. Several are published by the school itself, and one appears to be an interview with two faculty members at the school. Only the Jakarta Post article is independent and discusses the subject in some detail, and I don't know that paper's reputation or standing. Would this count as purely local coverage? It also sounds as if it at least partly relies on a press release. But even taking it a face value, it is far from sufficient. If there were several articles with this level of coverage, from different media outlets, that would be enough, and the tone could be corrected by normal editing. DES(talk) 12:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know that paper's reputation or standing" is not a valid deletion argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't make any such argument for deletion. I said I didn't know the publication but "even taking it a face value, it is far from sufficient". I would have said it was insufficient had it been the London Times, New York Times or any other publication of excellent reputation. A single source -- and this is the ONLY independent source cited so far -- is not enough. I asked for information from other editors on the publication, but absent a second source, it does not IMO establish notability. And I would have said the same had it been a school in a university in say, New Jersey or London, rather than Singapore. DES(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sufficient reliable sources to establish notability; inluding, as noted above "[discussion] in some detail" in "Indonesia's leading English-language daily". While it should not have been refused at AfC (the reason it was declined is not one of those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions), this is not the venue to argue that matter. Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Notability is relevant, and the Wharton link shows that this is a bona fide institution, not degree farm. I wonder whether this would have been refused at AfC, or be at AFD were it in England or the United States and not Singapore? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Andy is the reviewer who moved this from draft space to mainspace. DES(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the concerns I raised prior to this weren't addressed in the slightest. Normally schools are kept because they are considered inherently notable but when it's a promotional mess nothing is gained except free advertising thus defeating the AFC process. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for clean up. I stated it is inherently an ad, which implicitly meant it needs rewritten completely which was my reason for denial. Thanks for playing but try again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out where I mentioned clean up, I stated a "promotional mess nothing is gained except free advertising thus defeating the AFC process" if you wish to disagree that it needs a complete rewrite that is up to you but the community in their wisdom decided that articles that need to be completely rewritten is a valid deletion rationale. I have stated my opinion and don't have much more to add however much you try and twist my rationale, try convincing someone else please. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"concerns I raised... weren't addressed". Addressing them = cleanup. "rewritten completel". Rewriting = cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again just because you want to twist what the template and deletion rationales actually says doesn't make it so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Singapore Management University, where all six schools that comprise that university are already discussed. This seems to be routine practice for subsections of colleges and universities worldwide, except for a few highly notable exceptions. Let's focus here on what to do with this article now in main space rather than how it got there. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - What says anything has to go through articles for creation? Besides, this is NOT the forum for that discussion. When it comes down to it, this is a school within Singapore Management University and as such should be merged and redirected into that article unless indepdnently notable. Unfortunately, I do not see any references that would make it indepdnently notable.CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No article has to go through AfC. However this one was started there, and the editor who used that process was implicitly depending on the reviewers not to approve an article that is unlikely to pass an AfD. In this case a reviewer badly let the editor down or we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't object to a merge and redir, but there is very little independently sourced content here to merge. DES(talk) 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aero Slicer I'd be more inclined to consider that if there wasn't this blurb at the bottom "Asian Scientist Magazine is a media partner of the Singapore Management University Office of Research." It is also authored by the university. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears in google news search. And google can't be a partner. If it is then this B-school is reliable. AeroSlicer 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aero Slicer, we require truly independent sources to establish notability, and a publication run by the university itself is definitely not independent. Cullen328Let's discuss it 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge Major business schools that are part of a major university are generally notable, just as are medical or law schools. This is considerably less than that sort of business school: the Singapore Management University is itself a business school, and this is one of its six subdivisions. Even for famous universities, subdivisions at that level are not generally notable, and this is no exception. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have tried to list more independent sources from publications like the Straits Times and Jakarta Post which are not linked to the SMU School of Accountancy. I've also tried to write the article in a neutral tone and removed some peacock terms. The Singapore Management University's school of Business and Social Sciences have separate articles and I feel that the School of Accountancy has a similar level of notability as these schools. Note: I'm the main editor of this article. RachR310 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find another reference that specifically covers the awarding of two faculty members from the School of Accountancy.Bfpage |leave a message 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has corresponding article in Estonia Wikipedia which is referenced. Of course, I do not speak the language so not sure if the sources are reliable. However, I did a search in English and see she is an award winner in her field [3] and also did a Google translate on these [4], [5], and [6]. These appear to be good non-English references. CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate third-party coverage, notable within the field. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nevermind the article, I clicked "news" and got a tons of articles about her. Notable. Ogresssmash! 16:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The corresponding Estonian Wiki Article shows that she has received 2 First Prize awards from the city of Pärnu for public buildings, a National Architecture prize and a Baltic Regional prize for her work. Clearly notable. SusunW (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Matt Berninger rather than delete because this is a newly formed project and there's enough coverage to support the move, here and here. SwisterTwistertalk 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Articles are popping up about the duo's forthcoming album, there's a tour that spans the US, hits Canada, and goes to Europe, and the album release is forthcoming. I see no reason to delete, when it's likely the album is going to receive more attention as more releases happen/interviews occur. Additionally, redirecting to Matt Berninger seems off when it's not a solo project from him. The band also falls under notability for "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Criteria 1 reads "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", and El Vy have coverage in NPR, NME, Newsweek, Consequence of Sound and others just from a cursory Google search of the band name. Criteria 6 reads "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." This band contains two clearly notable musicians Matt Berninger and Brent Knopf, who has a solo project that is notable on Wikipedia under the name Ramona Falls. Maridiem (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per failing NBANDS, GNG. The article creator has a longterm history of making articles like this either too soon, or unnecessarily altogether. Sergecross73msg me 00:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this person to be a non-notable rapper. The article only has one source, which is a dead link. The archived version, however, shows that it is basically just a "blurb" on this artist's only album, on a vendor site. I'm unable to find reviews or coverage that meet RS standards and would establish that this person is notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not found on any major reliable sources, alas. Without any prejudice for a future article if and when he becomes notable. Collect (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; definitely non-notable per WP:MUSIC and general notability. FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than a few results and there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 04:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Me5000 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Rapper disputes are as interesting as any other neighbourhood disputes, aka non notable. — Ben Ben(talk) 17:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete as although I'm not familiar with any of this, I'm not seeing a need for a separate article and independent notability of one. SwisterTwistertalk 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Been 21 days, so soft deleting this. Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Pantera as there's nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwistertalk 05:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Another 21-day old AFD, so a soft delete Courcelles (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as there's nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwistertalk 05:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stethoscope. There's clear consensus here that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Less clear agreement on which of delete/merge/redirect is the right alternative. Selective merge seems a reasonable average of the various options. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some 3D printed objects (such as firearms, for security concerns, or spacecraft) I see little reason for this to be a separate article from stethoscope. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, because it's actually a very necessary medical device. The article can be later expanded to cover the Glia project and then renamed. -Mardus (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also created the article, because otherwise I'd have to re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles, such as in the article about David Littmann, stethoscopes, 3D-printing, and open-source hardware. -Mardus (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 3D-printed stethoscope is an open-source design, it deserves its own article as any other open source software project; Some open source programs are often even more obscure than this particular stethoscope. The device has gained widespread attention in the press, and I am convinced I can add more references from reputable sources. -Mardus (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:GNG and the single citation fails WP:MEDRS. Note to Mardus: if you "re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles" without any evidence of notability, your edits will be deleted as spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I worded it wrong; I meant to write: "I would have had to re-create much of the same content in many places," which is why I created the article in the first place, so that it could be linked to, instead of having to place the same content everywhere.
Notability of the subject matter is reasonably substantial, but I got tired and went to sleep by the time I was finished with much of the article text. I will add additional citations later. -Mardus (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The artile is titled "3D printed stethoscope". That is like an article on "fast car". There are plenty of notible fast cars, but the concept of a fast car is not inherently notable. I think the Glia stethoscope, the Gila project, or Free Medical hardware movement might be a better focus for the article. (Also, there are other 3-D printed stethoscopes that are not from Gila) Rayc (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I agree that the current text doesn't make enough of a case for an article, but this device might be a tipping point for something and the topic is still being explored by the media. I'd tend to note this down somewhere to be considered for deletion in a year's time. By then it might have been expanded, or renamed, or it might be no better. Gronky (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to stethoscope, in shortened form. Has coverage, but this is just a peculiar way of producing the same item, so there's just not enough content for a dedicated article. Sandstein 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Weak redirect Stethoscope As analogies, Handmade soap redirects to Soap and Injection-molded basin is red. Unless 3D-printed stethoscopes is used completely differently than normal stethoscopes (and covered by extensive RS) there is no reason for a distinction here. At the very most deserves a one-sentence small mention in the invention's history/development. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge over to Stethoscope as there's helpful information in this article, but it seems like it would best belong in some kind of a section over there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Stethoscope. A 3D printed stethoscope is not inherently notable on its own, but there could be a mention of such a stethoscope in the main article. No need to branch this topic into its own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep: "Not enough content" is a content dispute, not a valid deletion ground. The other list the nom cites is an all-time list, not an annual one. I might agree that a list of top grossing 2015 films in Nauru or Bhutan might fail of notability, but Indian cinema's a billion dollar industry. Nha TrangAllons! 12:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Someone more familiar with the area may want to confirm whether the asserted race wins meet WP:NHORSERACING. I don't know the difference between Grade 1, 2 and 3 races, but this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly any references, doesn't pass through WP:GNG, and unfortunately it looks like the jockey hasn't done much of note yet. I agree that it may simply be too soon to have an article right now. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches didn't return anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The nominator didn't create a clear delete !vote, and instead queried whether the subject is notable or not. Two other editors have provided rationales, and the merge discussion, if any, can take place on the talk page. Cheers. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it notable? It was founded by Hsuan Hua (or in his honor, I'm not sure). It is led by Hen**g Sure. It is affiliated with the Dharma Realm Buddhist University. All these topics have Wikipedia content. Perhaps BBM should, too, but I don't know. -- Lhimec (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination is malformed; please repair these issues and use the correct template for nomination.Nate•(chatter) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, hopefully that fixed it. Thanks Nate. -- Lhimec (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge information into Dharma Realm Buddhist Association and Heng Sure for now. Most info available seems to be about the leader, Heng Sure, rather than about the monastery itself. A photo would strengthen the case for keeping this a separate article. --Djembayz (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable religious organization. Maduwanwela (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG, and not enough prominence to satisfy WP:NSONGS. Basically, the song did not excite comment from the media. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A record issued in a limited edition of 500 is unlikely to be notable: it probably means that the potential market was estimated at that level. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The song as a whole might be, though; it was one of the warhorses of the 80's folk revival. [[7]] This article, though, just looks like an ad. I lean toward delete. Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwistertalk 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merely stating delete or keep with no rationale is not helpful in building consensus. Consensus is not achieved by counting up votes. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if the reasoning to the nomination was given - it is not obvious to me.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assume due to the nature of the sources (seems to be some blogs in there), and the how to manual tone in the intro. I don't think MEDRS applies anywhere in this article since there are no medical claims. Seems fairlyn niche topic,maybe it could be trimmed and merged to the MMA main article? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-RS sources can and should be trimmed out and the tone can be modified -neither is a good reason for deletion. In my opinion the MMA article itself is way too large and should be trimmed/out-forked in its own right. Not really relevant to this article I know but I am still struggling to form an opinion on this one - looking at it from a martial arts project perspective.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of the sources are salvageable, they are neither RS nor MEDRS compliant. This should be a speedy delete. -- CFCF🍌 (email) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really am sitting on the fence for this one but I take exception to the statement that none of the sources are reliable. The references talk about which MMA fighters are taking the route and what the effect is on the MMA world. Nothing in the article gives medical advice so the specific MEDRS does not really apply. Is the subject important enough for a stand alone article (shrug).Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS applies to any medical-related information. Not advice.-- CFCF🍌 (email) 09:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that claiming MEDRS applies to this article is stretching the point. The article makes does not provide medical information about TRT other than the bald statement of what it is - a one liner, which links to the Wikipedia article, although the reference it uses does not appear to mention it. Other than that it is all sports politics. Maybe the title suggests more than the article provides. If the title was to be changed to more accurately reflect the non-medical tone of the contents, perhaps the problem would go away? • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether there is enough reason to justify the existence of the article is another issue. At present I would say not, the material could be merged into another article on MMA dealing with what is or should be allowed. Merge and redirect may be the way to go. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS doesn't apply to articles, it applies to information. If there is any medical information in an article it applies to that information. If anyone wants to take something from this article and add it to an MMA article, sure, but there should be no redirect. I was treating this as if it would be merged to Androgen replacement therapy, which none of the information would belong at. -- CFCF🍌 (email) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no health claims here, medrs does not apply. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence 1 is a health claim "Testosterone replacement therapy is a treatment that fighters may choose to undergo if they have a testosterone deficiency" -- CFCF🍌 (email) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from, but this really is pretty over the top to say MEDRS is needed for this sentence. There is no statement of efficacy. Just stating that some individuals in this sport do this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but there is not even an RS source given, just a link to the Cleveland clinic's main page. -- CFCF🍌 (email) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Medical articles are not in my areas of interest, but it does look like the topic has received coverage. The article could probably be trimmed. I don't know that MEDRS needs to apply to the fact that some MMA fighters used this therapy. I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but I haven't actually taken a good look at the sources yet.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 'CFCF' "the sources are neither RS nor MEDRS compliant. This should be a speedy delete." … I don't understand how anyone could think this MEDRS-exempt, the article is clearly describing a 'treatment'. The MEDRS people should have the last word on this one. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I was actually going to redirect this to SaskTel but as it's fully mentioned there or is there something to support a move there, I'm not sure if deleting is a better option. My searches found here, here, here and here. SwisterTwistertalk 18:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As promotion. The advertising language and content cannot be easily cleaned-up in this case, because it's integrated throughout. Any notability they do have is marginal enough to make cleanup, research and re-writing not a worthwhile endeavor. CorporateM (Talk) 19:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the reliably sourced statements in this article (about 4 or 5 lines) could be merged into SaskTel under its own section with the title SaskTel International. Curiocurio 22:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced material to SaskTel and then Redirect. No reason this should have its own article independent of the article on the parent company, whose page isn't long enough to merit a split. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to a better consensus and possibly some improvement if possible; my searches found the following results here (fades by page 4), here, here, here, here and here (a search at Newspapers Archive also found nothing). He seems well known and notable in his field but I'm not sure if this can be improved and, if it can, it certainly needs better sources. Inviting the still most active users @Agent 86, Tevildo, and SlimJim: for comment. SwisterTwistertalk 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. In the 9 years since this article was last up for AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinley, Kevin M.), no sources have been added to indicate that Mr Quinley might pass WP:AUTHOR (which appears to be the relevant guideline). He's written lots of books and articles, but we need evidence that other people have reviewed and commented on them. Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of this page, person or edits. I usurped this username about a month ago from a retired Hungarian editor, so it's possible but not likely that it was him. I have no view on the matter. --SlimJimTalk 04:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With further inspection, I see now and although I saw the name "Geneb1955", I simply continued to look at the contributions thus seeing an active user. SwisterTwistertalk 05:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am very much in favour of deleting this article. In the many years since it has last been nominated, none of the many issues noted in the template at the head of the article have been resolved. I have also come back to this article many times, wondering what about it truly satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Merely having written a number of books isn't enough. Any time I've decided to tackle the problems with the article, I've been unable to resolve them, and it doesn't appear anyone else has either. Agent 86 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. After being relisted twice there's clearly no consensus regarding deletion. While I respect the debate outlined with Kraxler's opinion, there's still no other delete opinions that have come into light during the duration of this discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a blogger and writer, resting entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight. While there's enough of a claim of notability here (past nominee for the Lambda Literary Awards) that he could qualify for an article in principle, that's still conditional on the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the article, and is not a freebie that exempts a person from having to satisfy our sourcing rules. I've searched both Google and newspapers.com for improved sourcing, and found nothing — I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody else can find better sourcing, perhaps in a news database that I don't have access to, but he has to be better sourced than this before he can keep an article on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for nowWeak Keep -Does not meet notability standards for author or creative professional as it stands, due to no reliable secondary sources. However, some quotes of editorial reviews found here: The 4 Lambda Literary Award nominations qualify him under WP:Any Bio. Prolific writer, though all his books are self-published, per this description of Bellhue Press: " All of these books are by gay poet and pioneering activist, speaker, and authority on gender issues, Perry Brass". Article is only a few days old, author could still be adding sources. ABF99 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am a former gay bookstore owner (Liberty Books, Austin TX 1988-1994) and 'zine publisher/editor (White Crane Journal, 1996-2003) and activist/contributor to the "Gay Spirituality Movement." I have known of Perry Brass through all of these. White Crane Journal published reviews of his books (Summer, 2000 & Fall, 2007) and ads. I now work as a freelance editor with Lethe Press and know of Perry Brass as organizer of the annual Rainbow Book Show in New York City http://rainbowbookfair.org/author/perrybrass. I know Perry Brass as a longtime gay activist, gay community organizer, and gay publishing activist. He is a writer/contributor to Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/perry-brass/. I think he is notable in American gay cultural history. Tobyjohnso (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It takes reliable source coverage — of which none has been shown here — to get a writer into Wikipedia, not editors asserting that they know the subject personally. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a case of WP:Systemic bias here, the sources you mention wouldn't touch gay literature with a ten-foot pole. For authors, blog reviews are admissable, in my AfD experience. Amazon is a sales outlet, and I wouldn't come up with reviews from there. GoodReads doesn't seem to be a sales outlet, Or is it? WP:NBOOK says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." You see "reviews" is not further qualified, anybody may review a book, as long as they are independent of the book, the author, and the publisher, and don't advertise or sell the book. Kraxler (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally used every single one of the sources I mentioned in articles about writers of LGBT-themed books many times before, so it's not at all true to say that they "wouldn't touch gay literature with a ten-foot pole". And even if they don't necessarily cover all such writers in great depth, I only named them as a few examples of the types of publications that would count, and did not suggest that they're the only three publications that could ever count at all — LGBT-specific newspapers like Xtra! or Bay Windows, magazines like The Advocate or Attitude, and dedicated LGBT literature sites like the Lambda Literary Foundation are also excellent alternatives as well.
The problem with GoodReads is that the writer's basic biographical profile on such a page often is presented by the author, publisher, agent or other self-interested parties, while the reviews are user-generated by any member of the site at all (of whom some still could be public relations flunkies using SEO-style tricks to inflate a book's rating.) It's not automatically suitable for use as a GNG-satisfying reference source just because it doesn't directly sell the books itself — we do still require book reviews to be in a publication that would otherwise still count as a reliable source, and GoodReads still fails several of our other RS criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving a learned opinion on GoodReads. I admit that the web search didn't turn up much so far, I just got the overall impression that, although independently published, this author's books are widely read and discussed. I'll give it another try later, perhaps. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Dr. Hugh Howard Young and Perry Manual Brass were married Friday at the Manhattan Marriage Bureau in New York. Alisa Fuentes, an employee of the city clerk’s office, officiated.
...
Mr. Brass, also 65, is the author of “King of Angels,” a novel, and a playwright whose drama “Night Chills,” about the AIDS crisis, was presented Off Off Broadway in 1984. In 1969, he was among the founders of the Gay Liberation Front, a group that emerged after the disturbances at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. In 1973, he helped found the Gay Men’s Health Project clinic in Manhattan.
Mr. Brass, who graduated from New York University, is a son of the late Louis Brass and the late Helen Landy Brass, who lived in Savannah, Ga.
Mr. Brass was not at the Stonewall bar when the battles with the police broke out in June 1969. “If everybody who says they were there actually were there, it would have filled Yankee Stadium,” he said.
Still, what happened at the Stonewall motivated him and others to form the Gay Liberation Front. As for the idea that he would someday be married, he said, “I used to joke that it made about as much sense as gay divorce.” In those volatile days, he said, “we wanted to explode the mores of the world.”
Those mores had certainly been ruffled by the time he met Dr. Young in Central Park on the last day of November 1980. Mr. Brass was walking his dog, Willie, and Dr. Young was crossing the park on his way to church.
New York poet Perry Brass was so distressed by the beating death of 21-year-old gay college student Matthew Shepard that, within hours of hearing the news from Wyoming last October, he wrote "Matthew's Lullaby."
By e-mail, he shared his phrases about the universal need for safety and comfort with friends across the country, including Craig Carnahan, music director for the Twin Cities Gay Men's Chorus.
Months later, Carnahan was commissioned by baritone Chad Furman to write a piece - "Matthew's Lullaby" - for the chorus' 18th-season concert. Brass' poem was suggested as the libretto, for which Carnahan created a gentle, melodic lullaby.
The composer says, "Of the hundreds of responses I read to Matthew Shepard's murder, few were as eloquent as Perry Brass' moving poem with its images of home and warmth and sanctuary and peace - a profound response to a horrific event."
"All Men," Sunday, Lionheart Gay Theatre, Leo Lerner Uptown Center, 4520 N. Beacon St.; 769-5199: A hit at the 1987 Los Angeles Fringe Theatre Festival, Perry Brass' play combines narration, poetry, monologues and fiction to provide miniature portraits of gay men-from drag to butch, from rich to poor, and across several generations. What results is a portrait of a community in turbulent transition. H. Richardson Michaels directs and performs with the playwright. The second and final performance is Jan. 17.
Poet/novelist Brass lives in New York City and has published 13 books. They include "Sex-Charge" and "The Lover of My Soul," collections of poetry; "How To Survive Your Own Gay Life," "Mirage," "Albert of The Book of Man" and "Angel Lust." He is a six-time finalist for Lambda Literary Awards and won an Ippy Award from Independent Publisher Magazine in 2001 for "Warlock: A Novel of Possesion."
Craig Carnahan was disturbed while attending a vigil for Matthew Shepard shortly after the 21-year-old gay college student was murdered in Wyoming last October.
"The emotions that night were rage, anger and fear," he said. "I had friends who literally were afraid to come out of their houses for days afterward, they were so afraid."
Carnahan, music director of the Twin Cities Gay Men's Chorus, was looking for a different response to the killing that sent the nation soul-searching. He found it in a poem written by Perry Brass, a New York City poet.
"He'd written it the day after Matthew Shepard's death," said Carnahan. "But it wasn't a requiem; it wasn't angry, it was a lullaby. It never really mentions Matthew or his death, though you know what he's reacting to, yet it's universal, about people who fall because of being disenfranchised, yet who seek and finally find a safe haven. It was filled with images of warmth and humanity, of resting and being understood. It's about finding a safe place called home."
...
It isn't the first time Carnahan has worked with poet Brass. "I first became aware of Perry when the chorus was recording `Heartbeats,' our contribution to the AIDS Quilt Songbook," said Carnahan. "Chris DeBlasio had set a beautiful poem by him, the most spectacular song on the record, I think. I met him and in 1996 the New York Gay Men's Chorus commissioned me to set his work `Waltzes for Men.'
"He's a sensitive and musical poet - surprising, I suppose, since the other thing he does is write a gay science-fiction serial . . . all about gay aliens. Maybe that should be set to music next."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'll suspend judgement for now. A TV series by a major national broadcaster is a plausible candidate for notability but it still needs to be proven. The French language article doesn't look like it has much in the way of RS references either. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a notable theory/area of study - the article is sourced exclusively to papers by a single researcher (Moin Rahman), and none of the papers have significant citations or coverage in other, independent sources. Many of the links in the "external links" section are, again, to the author's own papers on scribd, or to news articles that don't even mention Moin Rahman or "high velocity human factors." I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise, but I can find no evidence that this is a notable or recognized theory/area of study. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is barely comprehensible pseudoscience that hasn't been improved despite evidence of prompting. The few articles that link to it are entirely inappropriate, suggesting that the readers haven't been able to work out what it means and just guessed at the intended meaning from the title. The single-source is the most concrete objections; so, not sufficiently notable.Klbrain (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references given are by M. Rahman who is the creator of the term as stated in one of the paper abstracts. The name of M. Rahman's company is HVHF Sciences LLC, and "High Velocity Human Factors" is the title of the company's home page. He the only person to use the term in publications. Even if the term catches on it is too soon to have an article. So far there are only the primary sources. It needs to be covered in reliable secondary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article was (basically) written by two editors, both of whom -- if different -- appear to have a COI; Article has major issues with tone, lack of evidence, and dead links; Artist does not meet WP:MUSBIO requirements for notability Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Even if one or two reliable sources could be found, it is very unlikely that this article would satisfy WP:MUSBIO IMO. The artists most recent album appears to only be available at gigs, which does not satisfy Point 5 of the criteria. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mention and redirect to Washington Public Library as News and Books results instantly found sources for Shepherd Park so she may have been best known for this. SwisterTwistertalk 06:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm inclined to keep, as there's too much material for a section in the main article. That said, it needs work, especially regarding its sources. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - any useful content to Rojava Revolution as I can't see why there would be any need to split the topics at this point (its not like there are any WP:SIZE issues). Then delete (I can't see it being a relevant search term either). Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: per Anotherclown. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm♠ 21:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable caste (with none of its contemporaries having pages of their own and no external references), at a page unlikely to be searched often enough to warrant a redirect. Westroopnerd (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Books search should at least show up some old colonial era coverage for any genuine Indian caste but even searching "Gatty, caste, India" in Google Books, News and Scholar turns up nothing but people with the surname Gatty, few of whom seem to be Indian and none of whom seem to be connected to this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indian castes have been thoroughly researched and documented. For example, the Jāti caste gets 357,000 google hits and 1,400 Google book hits. In comparison, this article gets no Google book hits. There's no indication that this is in any way notable or actually even exists. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Jāti is not itself a caste. -I think the GBooks issue is simply one of spelling - Gatty vs. Gatti etc, although the results seem still to be few, and very poor. Sitush (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -This community has a few mentions and a description in Google Books under the spelling "Gatti". Other information found here.ABF99 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Also, adding a news article here. So at least we know they exist, and are discussed in reliable independent sources. Another study of them here.[reply]
Keep and add to [Indian_castes]. Though small, there are enough references listed above to make them notable. One of the benefits of including info such as this on Wikipedia is that a researcher doesn't have to go ferreting around in old Colonial anthropology books to find it. ABF99 (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comment of User:ABF99. He has also added some references in reference section of the article. I think there was confusion between "Gatty" and "Gatti". Both are same words and we should search both terms. Apart from sources given by ABF99, I will try to give some more sources. This is really great source. There is no reason why we should call any existing social group as "non-notable". --Human3015TALK 01:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging @Sitush: who happens to have worked a lot in this subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking into this, thanks to the ping from Dharmadhyaksha. I have just removed one source - the "states" series of The People of India is unreliable. I've also removed an entire section because it was a copyright violation of this, which itself doesn't appear to be a great source - it makes some odd claims that seem to have their origin in Raj sources, it is published by an affiliated organisation, and its author is a nobody working at a very minor, local institution (nb: Indian academic posts sometimes derive from "dead men's shoes" and seniority in age/service rather than from merit). Human3015 mentions another source aboves but that is published by Global Vision, whom we never accept as being reliable. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: ABF99 also mentions above the Joshua Project as a source. WP:RSN determined that to be unreliable aeons ago. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal may be incorrect to say that the community were ignored by Raj ethnologists. For example, the first paragraph here is reprinted in numerous books from the 1980s onwards and looks very much like Raj writing to me. James Tod also mentions them in connection with an area of Rajasthan, and they were mentioned here as a community from Saurashtra. Of course, none of these Raj writings are remotely reliable. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Thanks for your comment. But in nutshell what you want to say? This article should be "Kept" or "Deleted"? We are not finding reliable sources it doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. At least we can say that this caste do exists and as nominator is claiming in nomination there is no concept like "non-notable caste" in encyclopedia point of view. --Human3015TALK 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may misunderstand WP:GNG - we don't keep articles about any non-notable subject, and the main test for notability is whether or not they are discussed in several reliable independent sources. "Discussed" means not merely passing mentions etc, and mere existence does not equate to notability. I am still looking into this particular case. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to find anything substantive in independent sources etc and I now note that this community seems not to be recognised by the authorities either. I say that because they are neither a Scheduled Caste nor an Other Backwards Class in Karnataka. This means that, by a process of elimination, they would have to be a Forward class ... and FCs are usually well-documented by virtue of superior education/opportunity/contacts. I really do think this is probably an ongoing attempt to create/define a new community, with Wikipedia being used as one means of doing so/legitimising it. That has been the story of the last 120 years or so, with the number of castes identified around 1900 growing by around 700 before the 21st century ended. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I'm glad that some users with knowledge of Indian ethnography are taking a look at this. Just wanted to add that the study included as a reference also cites other sources discussing the Gatti that could be investigated as to their reliability. I think the diverse spellings and relatively small internet coverage have made it more challenging to find reliable sources in the usual places. ABF99 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned that reference and noted the sources listed in it. It really doesn't look good to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invoke WP:IAR if needed, but this seems like one of those why the encyclopedia exists kind of articles. Some sources: gatty news portal, Joshua Project, Castes and Tribes of Southern India (volume 2). I admit none of those are the kind of strong sources we normally require for WP:GNG, but as I said, IAR. Surely, if we can have thousands of stupid articles about obscure pokémon, porn performers, third-rate footballers, and other meaningless pop culture, we can have this article about a historical ethnic group. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
struck my !vote, per argument below -- RoySmith(talk) 11:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a dreadful rationale. With don't keep stuff because other things exist. If you want to nominate obscure Pokemon articles etc for deletion then feel free to do so. Your sources are also useless - is anyone actually reading what I've said above? How many of you are aware of sanskritisation and how many can explain why it is this community that is supposedly from Karnataka in south India has seemingly had mentions in northern India? The lack of decent sources is tending to suggest that we might end up misinforming the reader, which is worse than saying nothing at all. Gatty News, by the way, is pointless: we do not use sources affiliated to castes etc because they are not independent and because we already know that the process of fission and fusion among Indic communities is an ongoing socio-political battle that depends at its outset on some small group of people deciding that they either want to be different or want to pretend to be something else in order to gain an advantage. Using affiliated sources gives credence to something that often is not accepted by wider society, a classic example of which is the Bhumihar claim to Brahmin status. While the Bhumihars are well documented, it is looking increasingly as if the Gattis are not. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit that my opinion is not based in policy (hence the reference to WP:IAR. I also freely admit to not being an expert in Indian culture. I found a marriage site where women are presenting themselves as members of the Gatti caste. And here's a blog post. And another article. So while it may not meet the formal definition of being a caste, it at least appears that there is some group of people who self-identify as being Gatti, and that seems worth mentioning. I also agree that OTHERSTUFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article; I was just expressing my frustration about the amount trivia we cover. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more trivia, based on crap sources, doesn't improve the situation. Indic community articles of this type are regularly deleted, as are many that turn out to the clans, subcastes and the like. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR bio about a hacker that cites no sources (and none seem to be available) and that is either promotional or defamatory depending upon ones point of view. Incidentally, the article should correctly be titled "An0n$iD", although even that does not help find any reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think,there is small amount of information available about the defacer.I came to know about the defacer because my name and his name is similar(last part of name).I saw the article on wikia.com .And I came to know that there are many websites,hosting servers defaced by the defacer and also concluded by seeing the cache history of the web domains from google that the defacer has tried to depict some social issues on every deface pages.And sadly his twitter,facebook account links stated in wikia article are not working or maybe deleted by the social networks.Else more information should have been possible to extract from that links.Haxxorsid (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even approaching a source, the external links do not fill such a need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:NEOLOGISM created as a piece of marketing by the Lazada Group. I can't find any evidence that this has received any coverage in high-quality sources. SmartSE (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, my searches found nothing good at all and not even something of minimal improvement. SwisterTwistertalk 07:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- No notability. ScholarM (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should we start creating article of every department provided in every university of world? Anyway the article lacks references so it should be deleted. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jahangirnagar University the department is not much notable to be kept as separate article. - Arr4 (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Jahangirnagar University. Could find no evidence that the department is independently notable, so do not keep (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). The title is an unlikely search term, so I see little advantage in a redirect, but a selective merge could improve the university article. Condense the department information into a few sentences: when it was founded, the evolution of its name, its current size, and perhaps the degrees offered. Do the same for similar article Department of Chemistry (JU). Worldbruce (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The estate is not notable, notability claims are indirect, it is near notable houses, but not on any notable lists, it is in the style of Richard Morris Hunt or inspired by Frederick Law Olmsted, but no involvement by either. It has no reliable references, the article had external links , general references, and see also sections that referred to a nearby, not associated property, none of them applied to the subject of this article. Generic1139 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to do more research on this. The article twice claims it was built in 1796 and then twice says it's a Gilded Age house, which of course was a century later. Which is it? Something else to consider; the article was created and mostly written by User:L4Harrington. A Hyde Park, New York area real estate agent by the name of Margaret Harrington has an online listing for this very property.[9] I'd still be okay with keeping this if this is truly a historic house with ample independent coverage, but this spa WP:COI situation isn't helping its case. --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a real estate agent's promotional sales listing masquerading as an encyclopedia article. According to Huyler's, John S. Huyler, the fellow who paid for the mansion to be built, was born in 1846 so the mansion could not have been built in 1796. That could be a typo and it was actually 1896, but who knows for sure? But I can find no evidence that either the home or the property is notable. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Started by SPA, this unsourced article really does seem to be a clever advertisement by a realtor. My searches on keywords that ought to work if it was real (as in: a genuinely notable house or property): Ledgewood + Huyler + "Hyde Park" [10] A commercial misappropriation of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brunswick Boat Group. If anyone wants to merge anything, it can be drawn from the redirect's history. Deor (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Businesses are not inherently notable. The sources for this particular article are all first party sources. In fact, they are the company's website. I would generally suggest a merge to Brunswick Boat Group, but with the amount of small boat companies that belong to them; that article would be flooded soon. I propose to delete this article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect/merge: Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. A little much but the English Wikipedia is supposed to lean inclusionist. This article by itself is garbage but it could be summarized in the Brunswick article. Two sources are weak data mining sites but are not the company website. B137 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per B137. Me5000 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable recreational boat company, part of Genmar Holdings. Easily passes GNG. I've added quite a few citations from Forbes, Bloomberg Business, Boating Industry and other hard publications to demonstrate without a doubt. The Dissident Aggressor 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I might like to switch to a week keep per Dissident Aggressor's additions to the page. B137 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that the Genmar Holdings affiliation does not assert notability. In fact, that company was considered the second largest manufacturer of recreational boats, so they naturally would have a lot of companies underneath them. The Forbes link does nothing for either Genmar or Lowe Boats; but it was written for Genmar, not for Lowe. The link is a list type link, that shows the company's place, that's nothing to do with notability, especially not for Lowe Boats. The Boating Industry mentions are just that, mentions. They do not offer an in depth look into this company. The company itself didn't make headlines anywhere, it hasn't been written about in third party, non affiliated sources (i.e., non boating publications for one). Now that an article for Genmar Holdings exists, I could support a merge to that article; but as it stands now, this company doesn't stand up. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brunswick Boat Group, where it's already listed under Subsidiaries, and doesn't need anything more than that. Google search shows no evidence of independent notability. The Forbes reference is a single-word listing as a division of another company. The Bloomberg reference isn't much better; it's one short paragraph of perfunctory, directory-style, information about the company being a subsidiary of Brunswick. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Thanks to User:DissidentAggressor for adding sourcing, but what we have is mostly routine business news. Since there's a perfectly acceptable merge/redirect target, this material should go there until something significant directly detailing appears. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The past AfD linked a few places where this person is mentioned; but it only just mentioned her name. None of the sources listed here go into much detail, if any at all, in regards to the actual person this article is written for. The overwhelming majority of the references used are in regards to Pacifica Radio; and not Lynn Chadwick. She was one of the endless execs for this company and nothing really meets notability guidelines. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The event itself -- the firing of big name radio personalities and blockading of the radio station -- is covered in the article on Pacifica Radio. I find only mentions of Chadwick in the press, and mostly in alternative press. LaMona (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against redirecting. Swarm♠ 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Nowa (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to have charted in both Germany and Austria. Karst (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine if it is indeed notable. Can you provide a reference that talks about the song? We need a good reference for the article.--Nowa (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It did chart in multiple countries. It passes notability guidelines. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed WP:NSONG and I see where it says that a song may be notable if it has charted, but I think we are still a long way away from “multiple, non-trivial published works”. Is it common for a song to chart and yet for no one to write about it? I have nothing against the song or the band. This article came to my attention when I was working on Yoko Ono. That article mentioned this song but when I could not find any articles that discussed this song, I removed it from that article. When I could't find anything at all about the song, I thought that perhaps a stand alone article was not warranted.--Nowa (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I did find this reference [11]--Nowa (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with redirect.--Nowa (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charting songs are notable, per WP:NSONG "The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria. # 1 Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." that means coverage is needed to write a stand-alone article, coverage is there, refs are there, info is in the article, could be added more, but it's out of reach at AfD. It's notable also for having been the shortest ever music video on MTV (47 seconds) and possibly the shortest ever charting song (31 seconds), although the whole EP has a little more music. Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reference for shortest ever music video on MTV? The article used to claim that the song was in the Guinness Book of World Records for shortest ever song. I checked online, however, and Guinness doesn't have “shortest song” as a category. That has made me suspicious of all claims of notability relative to the song's length.Nowa (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German-language source (published by "Rhein-Zeitung" in Koblenz) has a quote by the singer of this group who says that they are in the Guinness-Book with their video, not the song, he says it is "the shortest video ever made seriously and shown on TV", but it might be just a joke. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wouldn't make sense to have such a category, I'm confident that it was a joke. It may have been the "shortest music video ever shown on MTV as a separate complete piece of music", but to assume that would be OR. Back to the topic, the record passes NSONG because of the chart position. Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sourced information is already in the album and discography articles. If there's nothing more that can be said and properly sourced an article isn't justified. Redirect it to the album if you think this disambiguated title is going to be useful as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michig. At best, useless article. WP:NSONG should be used with common sense, and placing 46th in the German chart is not enough to justify a standalone article. It could be eventually redirected to Die Ärzte discography#Singles which includes the charting informations for the single. Cavarrone 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (although I personally wouldn't waste the time). While charting can mean a song is notable, it doesn't automatically make it notable, as pointed out by Primefac. Onel5969TT me 15:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was averaging about 8 hits a day prior to the deletion discussion. I think a redirect would be worthwhile. Nowa (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Insufficient reliable sourcing present to justify passing NSONG. A reasonable search doesn't help. BusterD (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Essentially the same as the article deleted twice previously, once by speedy,oce by CSD. Promotional and not notable. The references are basically press releases or articles based on them ,or mere notices. The contents is promotional , using unsupported terms of praise "quickly with minimum effort" ; "correct value" and descriptions of its routine operations which are exactly like all used electronic commerce sites. Veryborderline notable at best, and borderline notability plus promotionalism is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually saw when this was nominated and was going to comment but I wanted to wait. Now I suppose, there could be better coverage with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwistertalk 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I won't vote here, too close to my wheelhouse. The article seems pretty well sourced and the original editor seems to be actively working on promotional tone concerns. 009o9 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company. They do a thing. They didn't invent the thing and aren't even particularly special at the thing. Yeah that's not good rationale for being notable.--Savonneux (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to add much to the nominator's evaluation, it is spot on. The company is not innovative, or a trendsetter. It is fairly new, and is generally only briefly mention as participating in the industry. What it needs is dedicated articles about it in notable sources, and I don't see that. Scr★pIronIV 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the UK R&B chart is notable, I'd argue that this list of fairly arbitrary records from the chart is not; per WP:LISTN, the list's topic can be considered sufficiently notable if it has been discussed as a group in independent, reliable sources. As far as I have been able to tell, the sorts of chart records listed in this article (UK R&B chart records) have not been discussed by any reliable source, including even the Official Charts Company's news releases. This leads to another glaring issue; that the entire article's contents are original research, compiled in a piecemeal, unsystematic manner by its editors without reference to sources that specifically identify the artists and works as the holders of those records. Every single reference given in the article links to a single week of the chart, which is not at all informative when it comes to verifying whether the artist/song/album in question holds a record over the entire chart's history. For instance, to support the contention that JLS holds the record for most number-one albums on the chart, four references to individual chart weeks showing the four different albums at number one are given. Though this does support the claim that JLS have four number-one album on this chart, per WP:SYNTH, these sources do NOT support the contention that no other act has earned as many number-one albums on the chart and that JLS hold this record; indeed, there appear to be no sources that discuss this achievement in the context of that 'record' whatsoever. Nearly all of the 'records' and 'milestones' listed in the article suffer the same problem; therefore, in addition to the article's content being questionably noteworthy, it is also not verifiable. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:LISTCRUFT, of no encyclopedical value, and would need to be constantly updated Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are not providing adequate coverage to merit an article, per the requirements of WP:BASIC. North America1000 10:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this because I can't find anything to suggest improvement (the article is orphaned as well) with my most successful searches here and here, nothing more than minor things and no significant links. I hope familiar users can attend to this if possible as he seems interesting and notable. SwisterTwistertalk 05:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He possibly is notable, but I see no way to prove it, in the absence of major national awards. This is not uncommon with people in technology. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the rticle, just another engineer, no independent sources in the article, no coverage, Google scholar shows some papers, with not so many citations Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I tried my best to find any significant coverage of this, but failed. Links to Discogs and Musicbrainz are not enough to indicate notability for inclusion Wikipedia. This article would be, at best, a redirect to either Burial (Burial album) or Burial discography. 和DITOREtails 04:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The artist is very well known, and you were able to find a source. I believe there are more sources out there; but with releases such as this, you will have to do some digging. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying to keep the article because the artist is well know is definitely a great example of a useless inherited nobility argument. And besides, I digged as hard as I could with this. (Google Books: The first result is just saying the title of the song itself, and the other 3 results only mention the EP very briefly without going in-depth enough and that's it) (Google News: I know Google News removed that archive search feature, and I will never forgive them for that, but the same case is here, all that's in this search are either just mentions of the name of the EP or just talking about the title song rather than the actual EP, Regular Google Serach: All I could find here were very few articles talking about the EP, most of them which are non-independent, non-notable blog posts. I rest my case. 和DITOREtails 13:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you google search for an album, you often times have to search for more than the album title plus the artist name. Here, you have a generic EP name and a generic artist name. Saying to keep the article because the artist is well known isn't an argument for inherited notability; but rather it was pointing out your flaws in not searching hard enough to find this album anywhere online. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burial discography where we can easily add a 'tracks' column to the EPs section, making this article redundant. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My searches found nothing to suggest better coverage including aside from Canada-based sources and the best from my searches being this (for judging a local music competition). None of the awards seem convincing enough to suggest notability. SwisterTwistertalk 03:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, refs are dead links, blogs and myspace, web searches turn up no coverage Kraxler (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 23:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another open and shut case of non-notability and actually non-existence because their website is closed. My searches found absolutely nothing to suggest this ever received coverage and I thought of PRODing but I wanted comments especially if there's (albeit marginal possibility of) non-English sources). SwisterTwistertalk 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be OK now. I just added a bunch of Refs. They're all in Polish but it doesn't matter. Looks like a real thing to me. Take a look at the pics in the first source. Beautiful costumes. Poeticbenttalk 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent, unfortunately the first is a press release esentially copying their website, the 2nd is their actual website, the 3rd seems to be issued or at least linked to by them, but says nothing about them, and the 4th is again their website . DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much else I can do about this AfD. I found an article from an independent source about Bollywood dance from a Forum in Poland for the fans of the Indian culture.[12] Shamiana is mentioned there as an organizer of such presentations. Poeticbenttalk 20:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 03:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Poeticbent.--Human3015TALK 01:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously non-notable actor and musician with my searches finding nothing good at all. A look at the history also shows considerable vandalism and other issues in 2007 and 2008 and no significant improvement has ever been made since starting in September 2007 by a SPA that may have been connected to the subject. SwisterTwistertalk 05:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing, notability and improvement with the best results here, here and here. Her radio show may have also ended as the links are now dead and there's hasn't been any recent coverage. SwisterTwistertalk 06:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability predates today's social media hype. If she did what she did then today, there would be much more media and internet interest available on Bennie.. KH29 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)KH29[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is irrelevant. She's a young woman, plus I couldn't find sources in print either. The bottom line is the quality of sources available. There are scant sources about her, which are not extensive, she thus fails WP:GNG; it's very simple. Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with "social media hype". Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 17:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article refers to a single proposal in a larger document that was never government policy. The document (the Christie report) has since been superseded by Sydney's Rail Future, which is government policy and contains a different plan for this area. Also, the page is wholly reliant on a single primary source – the Christie report itself. Mqst north (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not form part of any current plans nor even being considered by government. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing at all to suggest better sourcing, notability and improvement with the best results here, here and here and finally there's no move target for this orphan that seemed to have been started by the subject (April 2008 and no significant changes since then). SwisterTwistertalk 06:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no clear evidence of notability , and there does not seem much likelihood of better sourcing DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable writer. The prize she won does not seem to be very high-profile, and I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (personal webpage and university faculty pages don't count). ReykYO! 09:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked on EBSCOhost and she has a substantial review from a journal in the database for her poetry. In addition, she is a regular contributor to Huffington Post, and several academic and literary journals. I'll hit Lexis Nexus later and see what I can find, but I think she's notable enough to keep. She is also the editor of several books that seem to be used as textbooks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated her page to reflect what I've found in databases. There is still a little more to add, but I think my "Keep" argument is stronger now because I've shown that she's been covered in journals and her work has contributed to the way Creative writing is taught at the University level. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least, meets WP:BASIC with what's currently in the article, plus this, and this and this and this. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains sufficient sources as of now to comfortably surpass notability guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above: notable, rewritten, cited. Ogresssmash! 04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per WP:NFF and WP:NFILM. This film has not been released yet; and as per WP:NFF, it should not have an article. Yes, the Toronto International Film Festival is going to screen it, however, none of the sources state if the film is 100% finished. If you disregard that though, it fails WP:NFILM. 0 third party coverage. Google searching this one is difficult as it matches a location which isn't related to this film. If you look at the results that do come up; some are mirrors for the TIFF website listing, while others are promoted via the films production team. I don't feel this belongs here until it at least officially releases; and even then, only if it becomes notable. Appearing at a film festival doesn't assert notability, but if something comes out of said festival, then notability may become established later on. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom hasn't even read WP:NFF - that is for films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. The film isn't in production, it's completed and ready to be screened at TIFF. Here is some coverage of the film: 1, 2, 3, 4 and the page at TIFF. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 14:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A plot synopsis does not count for a source. (your 4th link) And, none of your links explicitly say that this film has completed production. If you want to get technical on that one. The third link isn't a review of the film, but another synopsis. Your BOA link literally only mentions the film in a small way. It's not a review either. It literally describes some of the people who were involved in the film; it doesn't talk about the film. The first link you listed starts off praising Latin American film presence slated for TIFF. It doesn't mention this film until 3/4ths of the way down the article, and then it's only to lump the name of this film in with the names of a few others. Once again, not a review. The Undead Never Die (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly enough coverage across multiple sources to meet WP:GNG. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 16:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no there is not. The "coverage" you talk about for this film is nothing more than database style lists that just prove that the film is a thing, or they are slight mentions of the name of this film. Hardly notable for a film that hasn't come out yet. The Undead Never Die (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is not at all unreasonable to expect a Brazilian film to have non-English coverage, ina very quick look, and even if not the sole topic being discussed therein, I found it's production spoken of in a more-than-trivial fashion by Deutsche Welle in (Portugese) and interestingly, Oglobo (in Portugese) refers to it as an Agência Nacional do Cinema award recipient. I think this NEW stub best serves the project by remaining and being further improved over time and through regular editing as more is found or become available. Deletion is not always the best way to build an encyclopedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article only references the technique of one designer. This technique doesn't appear beyond her book, which is a primary source. It may make sense to merge with the existing needlepoint article. Ehgarrick (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123(drawl) @ 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, it is mentioned beyond her book if you do a search. However, the ones I found were not WP:RS which means that it has no notability. I would suggest merge but not sure where to.--TTTommy111 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches didn't turn up anything which showed this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969TT me 15:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice, there's no consensus towards deletion or keeping the article.
I would like to note that DGG's comment is spot on. Just because an article has been around since '07 and hasn't had any significant work done, there are sources and there is literature out there, however, we need to reach out to our bilingual editors to assist in translation and sourcing. I suggest reaching out to the appropriate projects for tagging and assistance. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically original research and my searches (with both names) found nothing good to suggest improvement and better understanding (the two listed sources are not enough to save it nor are significant). SwisterTwistertalk 16:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think we should delete articles about historical personages such as Companions of the Prophet without a careful check in printed sources under all possible forms of the name (the article itself give 2 different transliterations) . What is recounted here is obviously legend and presented as such, but the person may nonetheless be notable. I am not qualified to do a proper search, which would need to be done in Arabic, not just transliteration, but I easily found [13] in whats eems to be a reliable modern academic book. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I understand DGG's persuasive argument, but the article has been here since 2007, and no work to add RS has really been done in all that time. I agree, I'm not qualified to search in Arabic, but searches in English do not show notability. Onel5969TT me 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At best a content fork of Posttraumatic growth, with which this article shares a structure and a good deal of content.
No evidence found of any use elsewhere of the term "Post experience growth". Nor has any publication in this field been found authored by a John Stolk.
No mention of "Post experience growth" or of a "Dr John Stolk" in the impressive list of references.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a piece of original research, never published. Dr. John Stolk has a doctorate in business administration and gives speeches on the power of using your brain. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Keep. The article does not actually fail WP:PRODUCT, because it doesn't depend on the notability of any company (there is no company behind it). The last paragraph on WP:PRODUCT clearly states:
"Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."
As far as notability goes, you can find several articles about it in online magazines. We can debate how many articles are "enough", but that is always going to be subjective. The software is notable for being the only actively maintained replacement for the native Windows terminal window, that is still capable of handling native Windows console programs.
Finally, the potential COI issues seem fairly insubstantial, as outlined in my remarks on WP:COIN#ConEmu, so no point repeating them here. Grnch (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is some discussion about the deletion on the article's talk page. It does have some noise from meatpuppets, but there is also a genuine discussion there about improving the article. Grnch (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at List of terminal emulators ConEmu is the only active one (except Win32 console) that is not only a SSH/serial port client and many have articles not better than the ConEmu one. Instead of removing ConEmu and laving the reader with outdated information on outdated software only, there has to be a other way. If the ConEmu article itself is not important enough for Wikipedia, maybe all this articles about terminal emulators should be deleted and merged into one big "Terminal Emulators for Microsoft Windows" article?
Think about the experience of a reader if this article is deleted. They search for a terminal emulator for Windows and find only information about outdated end-of-life products. They would believe there is no current software for this task. This is not the experience we want for them, is it?
ConEmu was also featured in one of Germany's biggest computer magazines[1] (printed onto dead trees), which is how I first found this software. While it is not a good source for the English Article, it shows the importance of the product. (And if I ever find enough time in-between my job and private life, creating a German entry on Wikipedia fr ConEmu is on my to-do list) Anybody (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much offsite discussion is happening on GitHub, among other places. That said, the problem with notability is that most "popular" sources that have talked about ConEmu are not English; they are Russian, German, etc. or talk about Cmder which includes ConEmu. The second problem is that ConEmu is a relatively young software and lacks historical significance. Wikipedia is not a catalog; WP lists software but seldom makes whole articles about it unless they are really that significant. Perhaps this article could find a better home in the Russian Wikipedia where the policy enforcement is a little different and since ConEmu already has a Russian userbase/website. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to mention that ConEmu could end up as a permastub even if kept, as explaining ConEmu's "unique" features hardly meets Wikipedia's format for verifying facts. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I speculate that wikipedia considers the subject important as this page List of terminal emulators lists very many such programs (usually for UNIX). This is possibly the second most popular such tool on windows so the article seems important.90.192.167.83 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the best sources are nonEnglish there is no reason why they should not be used; it will helpto provide a translation of a key sentence, but even that isn't essential. It will surely be moehelpful than the various blogs now used for the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this meets notability due to magazine coverage, such as PC Advisor mentioning the software. For a list of news articles containing ConEmu, check Google News. Gaming4JC (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles from what seem to be good sources, such as [14] and [15]. I don't think the COI issues are relevant as to whether ConEmu is notable. I do not believe sources in other languages would be needed to improve this article, but even so sources in other languages are certainly allowed when determining notability, at WP:NOTE it says: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". I agree with the above that it doesn't fail WP:PRODUCT as it stands on its own. I would be interested in another editors opinion on sources for software like this though, only tech magazines and blogs will mention IT/dev software such as this and it would be hard to find particularly long or interesting sources. Boccobrock•T•C 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources after searches (e.g. [16], [17]). North America1000 10:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain – Miss Earth is being held annually so it's sure that the pageant will be held in 2016. You people who say it should be deleted do not know the pageant industry. So better shut up your mouth and do not dare to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.146.133.15 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No date. No verifiable venue. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails CRYSTAL & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After looking up this article's name, there seems to be nothing else about it online, at least in English, despite that it's said to be "famous". I also can't locate anything about the village of Sauram Garhi. Maybe there's details about it in Hindi or another language in its area (around Firozabad). Google Translate can't completely translate both the article name and the village name to Hindi. TheGGoose (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95Talk 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources for this supposedly famous temple. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because although places such as temples are considered notable, I found no evident sources to suggest improvement so I'll have to go with delete until this can be restarted better. SwisterTwistertalk 04:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was closed on 7 September as soft redirect to Wiktionary by User:Sovereign Sentinel, a non-admin. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, have vacated this closure as it seems out of line with the consensus. I am re-closing as delete. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICDEF not a dictionary. The second source even cites the first one. There is an etymology if you look for it but it's neither interesting, nor clear enough to build an article around. Even fleshed out it would be a permastub with bad sources. Savonneux (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on etymology: [18] This source which copies this [19] this source. [20] This book seems to lend some credence to that narrative. But a lack of contemporaneous accounts or research that goes beyond one authors opinion is missing.--Savonneux (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Savonneux: I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with American Louisiana Cajun culture among enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.
That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only short shrift) to the broader American folklore and culture of the United States.
When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is more appropriate for Wiktionary. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Given the significance of the use of "Fiddlesticks!" in American folklore, Cajun culture, and African-American History, this topic warrants more extensive treatment than just a mere short-shrifted, token etymology in Wiktionary. (By the way, the word "etymology", perhaps ironically, has an entire long article on its own etymology in Wikipedia (Here), which has not been proposed by User:Savonneux or anyone else, as far as I know, for deletion, nor to be relegated only to Wiktionary.) --- Professor JR (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't think the bot picks up Retain as a valid !vote, however I might be mistaken. I suggest you change the retain to Keep. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help, Rsrikanth05, but yes, you're mistaken. There is no bot. AfD's are closed by humans, and they can read humanspeak just fine, so "Retain" is not a problem. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I know that AfDs are closed by humans, there's a script that counts the votes for convenience. Not picking up an argument here, I think I know my way around, having been here so long. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology is an academic discipline. Regardless this discussion isn't about other articles. It's about this article.WP:OTHERSTUFF--Savonneux (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article now has numerous facts that are not supported by the references given. It essentially is now chock full of original research and shows a huge US bias even though what little information I have dug up points to the fact it's been in use since the 15th century.--Savonneux (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one since I'm pretty sure that my username was the inspiration for this article - but I can't find any coverage/scholarship on it besides the usual dictionary-style definitions. Regrettably, I think that makes it a Delete.Fyddlestix (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's interesting o.O--Savonneux (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources cited above in this discussion show that "fiddlestick" and the exclamation "Fiddlesticks" date back to Shakespeare's time and the claim that it is an important part of Cajun culture is not supported by reliable sources. Anyway, how many slaves had fiddles? In the 20th century it was a minced oath, like "frick," for the "f-word." Edison (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete, already. After due consideration to the amount of whatever talent anyone commenting here may have being wasted on this discussion, and my willingness to concede on the "too much original research" argument and on the point of "too few sources" (American Cajun traditions, mostly oral traditions, are still not extensively documented in written literature) --- I have changed my mind, and agree that the page should be deleted. Why should any of us worry about better informing the, in many instances benighted young users of Wikipedia on topics such as one regarding the origins of an American cultural phenomena from Louisiana Cajun slave peoples' culture, or striving to better document same. It is NOT accurate, however, that the interjection "fiddlesticks!" dates "back to Shakespeare's time", as has bee suggested by User:Edison and elsewhere by User:Savonneux (the fact that a couple of you may have found the word "fiddlestick" (singular) in Henry IV, Part 1, notwithstanding.) Shakespeare's line (in Act 2, Scene 4 of Henry IV Part 1) is: "Heigh, heigh! the Devil rides upon a fiddlestick: what's the matter?" His use of "fiddlestick" (singular) there is neither employed as an interjection, nor does it carry the same meaning as the American Cajun usage of "fiddlesticks" (plural) when the latter is used as either just a noun to refer to the straws or sticks used to tap on a violin, or as the interjection "fiddlesticks!", both of which did in fact originate in 18th Century Cajun culture in the United States; and you'd be surprised, User:Edison, "how many slaves had fiddles" --- as they were more ingenious than you apparently give them credit for, and in many instances even learned to read, and dared to worship, though those activities were also forbidden in the majority of cases by their "owners". Shakespeare's character, however, was referring merely to a violin bow, with which one plays a violin (cf. Merriam Webster - definition of "fiddlestick" (singular)); and the playwright uses the term here to suggest metaphorically that the Devil is riding (or resting his case) on a trifle, in other words that he is spouting trivial nonsense; and the context where "fiddlestick" appears in that line of the play certainly does not support that it is intended as an exclamation or interjection. I agree with User:Fyddlestix, and "would love to come up with a rationale for keeping this one" --- but at some point it behooves us to desist from paddling against the rip-current of the millennial tide, and, not with any feelings of discontent nor regret, to content ourselves with the recognition that, as the novelist said: "we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." --- Professor JR (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Professor JR, your ad hominem attack on "millenials" certainly misses in my case. "Fiddlesticks" appears to have been a term of derision by 1719. Google book search has a 1719 version (English translation of that date?) ,[21] "Cupid, I adore thee ! There is a charm Turn up your lip, old Sourcrout ! we care not. We — the young — the gay — the healthy — the happy! Wisdom! — physic — no more ! — fling them both to the dogs, say I. Wisdom ! — fiddlesticks ; I am tired ..." from "Monsieur Bossu's treatise of the epick poem: Preface of ... - Page 53" by ≤René Le Bossu, André Dacier, Fontenelle (Bernard Le Bovier, M. de) - 1719 - Snippet view. (Other sources date le Bossu's original work, likely in French where a different word might have been used to 1675). The references provided so far to beating on a violin with straws or sticks are not sufficient to show notability of that technique as a subject of an article about the musical technique. Edison (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edison: That's most interesting, and thank you so much for tracking it down. I appreciate knowing that the use of "fiddlesticks" as an exclamation or interjection may trace back that far. Even though the French original (which I have not perused) may not have included a term or word equivalent to "fiddlesticks", the translator certainly did use the term, and in the sense we're talking about here, which does indeed seem to validate its use as an exclamation as early as the early 18th-Century in England. Thank you again. (Incidentally, are you aware that there already exists a Wikipedia article (here) on the subject of using fiddlesticks as a musical technique, whether qualifying for notability or not I'll leave to others.) --- Professor JR (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly doesn't belong per WP:NOTDICT. Word definitions and etymology belong in Wiktionary. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:ENT and hence, delete. Will withdraw if notability could be established. Regards —☮JAaron95Talk 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NewsBank UK & Ireland finds significant coverage in national newspapers of the era not accessible via Google News Archive, including:
Bushell, Garry (15 July 2000). "'I'd love to show what i can do on TV' - A quick one with Bushell".The Sun. 1075-word interview and profile, including a biographical sketch from schooldays onwards: "Mike started doing impressions at school ... Then he became an apprentice fitter, got bored and joined the Navy for five years. ... After the Navy, Mike worked as a roof tiler by day, appearing at holiday camps and clubs. Copy Cats made his name, and he kept his face on TV throughout the Nineties appearing on Noel's House Party, Des O'Connor Tonight, Celebrity Squares and the Gen Game. Being a radio jock for four years, has been the making of him though."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced "recently developed" term. Neither source given uses the word "cupex" or mentions the supposed inventor of the process, M.R Bakhshandeh, and Google only has four or five results for "cupex" "copper leaching" and "cupex" "bakhshandeh", all of them Wikipedia mirrors. McGeddon (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: until reliably established and not as OR being disseminated by article creator using Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good at all so delete for now until this can be improved. SwisterTwistertalk 05:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the Comments Thanks for your helpful consideration. We should explain the resources of the development process (CUPEX) by M.R. Bakhshandeh. This method has been approved by the State Organization for Registration of Deeds and Properties, Intellectual Property Center (http://iripo.ssaa.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=3974) on 13 August 2007 with No. 41954. We have attached the picture file of the approval document (IPC Prove Document). It is also approved by the Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST) - Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (MSRT) (http://en.irost.org/) on 24 September 2008 with No. 415/966. We have also attached the picture file of the approval document (IROST-MSRT Prove Document). We have also added some sentences in the Wikipedia page in order to mention such approval documents. Since the approval for invention registration in our country has been just proved by providing such documents, it is not possible to add another references such as published paper, patent, or others. Please let us know if there is something we could do in order not to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbarg (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article can not be based solely on primary sources Kraxler (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Onel5969TT me 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as another classic case of no sources and my searches found nothing good and a subject like this probably wouldn't have online and easily accessible sources anyway. Pinging previous editors TenPoundHammer and Tone (I would've pinged a few more but they're not highly active). SwisterTwistertalk 05:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why was I pinged? I never touched this article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search engines turned up nothing. Onel5969TT me 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. North America1000 11:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles on individual Wikipedia:Television episodes are perfectly acceptable. This one received coverage by hundreds of sources leading up to and after the event. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Very few 'roasts' have their own article, see Comedy Central Roast. Can't see why precedent should change here. AusLondonder (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very trivial game with just one reference and little notability beyond it being a variation on the Whac-A-Mole concept. Why have a stand alone article?I recommend deletion and possible merging of basic theme into the main Whac-A-Mole article. SpyMagician (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the same as Whac-a-Mole which was an arcade game with quite different mechanics. In any case, merger would mean that we don't delete per WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andrew D. that it wouldn't be a valid redirect to whac-a-mole, as they're very different concepts. It's not the most common game out there, but Google searches indicates it's widespread enough to meet WP:GNG. (Might be better moving it to 'splat the rat', and a photograph would help the article a lot) Aspirex (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 47,000 hits, there's several hitts on page one alone that push this over the meek requirements of WP:GNG. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 23:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating simply because of the low amount of good sources with the current link now dead and unretrieveable at archive.org and I'm not finding any solid evidence of the listed book aside from this (which seems to be the new version of the dead link) and further searches found this and this. At best, this should be mentioned elsewhere as she may not be independently notable but there's no obvious target. Pinging author Aciram and possibly interested editor LadyofShalott (who wikified it a little). SwisterTwistertalk 06:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only source for the article does not meet WP:RS. The content on the site was a blog, and has been shut down. Even if it were available it would not suffice. Scr★pIronIV 19:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969TT me 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's mentioned here, but witches, their processes and their death penalties were run-of-the-mill at the time, and a mention in one book is not anough for an article here Kraxler (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 nothing here indicates significance, and it should have been listed for speedy instead of AfD DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been somewhat known locally in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and I'm simply nominating because the low amount of good solid sources to even at least suggest local notability; my searches were here, here, here and here. At best, this could be mentioned elsewhere but as an orphan there's no obvious target. SwisterTwistertalk 06:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete As an unreferenced biography of a living person, policy says that this article must be deleted unless references to reliable sources are added. My search for sources yielded passing mentions, not significant coverage. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969TT me 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adventures in Foam - Both nom & David agree it should be redirected so redirecting, I will say however this should've been done 4 days ago!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album Adventures in Foam. @Charlie the Pig: if this is okay with you and if nobody else recommends a result other than "redirect", consider speedy-close/withdrawing this AFD and turning the page into a redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: If that were to happen, how do I withdraw this AFD? I've never done that. :p Thanks. Charlie the Pig (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. It's not just for administrators. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, just put a note at the bottom of this AFD saying you are withdrawing and ask a more experenced editor to speedy-close if for you. If you declare you are withdrawing, someone will close it later today provided nobody comes alng with a deletion recommendation first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete rather than redirect to the film Bollwood Life as my searches found nothing good at all aside from this and this (there isn't even as much gossipy news as usual, suggesting the level of non-notability). SwisterTwistertalk 04:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was a bit confusing since there apparently a writer for the India Times with the same name. Might be the same person, but even if it is, those are article by the subject, not about the subject. Can't find anything in the searches which would meet the notability requirements. Onel5969TT me 13:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My searches found nothing at all to suggest good third-party sources for improvement. There's no good move target for this article from March 2007 thus no alternative to deletion. SwisterTwistertalk 04:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: MTV has article on him but it is also copied from this Wikipedia article. There is no doubt that such man exists and he is singer, there are several videos of him. But only question is about notability which he fails. --Human3015Send WikiLove 03:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News and Highbeam have two hits, but for a seemingly different person, and they are both trivial, regardless. JSTOR, Newspapers and Scholar give zero results, and Books doesn't return anything to suggest he's notable. Onel5969TT me 13:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NHOOPS, as the most notable job he's had is as an assistant coach to an NBA Development League (equivalent to Minor League Baseball) team. The only reference provided is not independent. It's hard to search for other sources because there appear to be a lot of other Brian Walshes in basketball, but the only other one I could find was from a non-RS website with a popup ad. The only way a person could be notable from the NBA Development League is if they have won an award or broken a record of some sort, which this person has not done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanztalk 23:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My searches found no outstandingly good results here, here and here. As an orphan, there' s no good move target and there are no solid signs of improvement (article has existed since June 2010). SwisterTwistertalk 03:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find two nice cites, here and here, but both are from 2010, nothing since. And while they're nice, I don't think they meet WP:GNG. That, and the dearth on the other search engines, makes me vote delete. Onel5969TT me 13:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks rather promotional, and two trade-connected pieces can not really pass her over the GNG threshold Kraxler (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources that state Jose Perdomo was the doorman at The Dakota when John Lennon was killed and there are fringe-ish sources that state that José Sanjenis Perdomo (aka Sam Jenis) was a Cuban secret police agent who later became a CIA agent. Some of those sources state that the two are one and the same, probably to propagate the theory the CIA had Lennon killed. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about anyone with this name, and it's a BLP violation if either man is alive. - Location (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking a reliable source stating that the doorman was also the Cuban agent, the article is highly problematic. This person (or these two people) do not seem notable, and the article appears to be a coatrack supporting a conspiracy theory. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up two trivial mentions on News. Nothing on the others. Onel5969TT me 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete The available sources are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the relevant notability guidelines. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a mall that was brought to AFD in 2007 and deleted. It was recreated in 2012 with no sources. I searched and could not find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All three references given in the article are broken. I searched and I am fairly confident that yes, there is, in fact, a mall with this name. And that's all I know for sure about it. Possibly there are better Indian-language references out there? They could potentially save this article. --Ashenai (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I found a source to prove existence but not necessarily notability. I added it to the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. --. Shloktalk . 12:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be the largest mall in its area of India, but I can't find any sources to verify that. Currently the article is a mess, most sources are just directory listings. The award it won is too obscure to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm baffled. Ten minutes of clicking on links and things that look like links but aren't, and the only thing I've managed to determine for certain about this place is that it exists. Delete? I guess? --Ashenai (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not the answer to poor articles. Cleanup is. Sources can be found such as India RetailingAusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches on News, Newspapers turned up nothing to show this retailer meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, mosly pr pieces (and few of those), and brief mentions. Onel5969TT me 16:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability, much less being signed to Atlantic Records, all I could find through Google was social media sites. Everymorning(talk) 02:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better than self-generated media and it's by far too soon for an article. SwisterTwistertalk 05:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly a hoax, definitely not notable. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches found nothing which meets the criteria of notability. Onel5969TT me 13:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close: There was already an active discussion on Talk:Microsoft Spyware and as a result of that ongoing discussion, an active expansion-draft being written at Talk:Microsoft_Spyware/expansion. To nominate the main article for deletion without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing discussion and without also including the draft "expansion" article is poor form. I'm going to take off my "non-admin closure" hat and put on my "experienced editor" hat and recommend that no further attempts to delete this be done without further discussion on the article talk page. I'm putting my "non-admin closure" had to say that any future AFD of the article should also explicitly include the "draft expansion" sub-page, assuming that page still exists at the time. Since Talk-sub-page drafts fall under WP:MFD and articles fall under WP:AFD, the best way to handle it would be to list both at AFD as a joint nomination, then create a "placeholder" MFD that points back to the AFD. The placeholder is for the benefit of editors who patrol MFDs but not AFDs. As this is a non-admin closure, if you disagree, feel free to ask any admin to overturn my decision and reopen the discussion. I will trust his judgment. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If anyone thinks a redirect is appropriate (or if the discussion referred to by davidwr in the last comment below supports the existence of one), he or she may boldly create one. Deor (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but with a little more in the way of significant coverage I could be persuaded to change my mind. The fact that he and his wife got several pages of coverage in two different books helped a lot, but the fact that this coverage was there only to provide context for their children's up-bringing weakens the notability claim significantly (WP:NOTINHERIT). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the father of two great guitarists is not a plausible claim of notability, and the article consists mostly of trivia, because the man was not notable. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to maybe Stevie Ray Vaughan as there are going to mentions for him but likely more through the sons but there's no explicit need for deletion (as the article is neat and sourced) so a redirect should suffice. SwisterTwistertalk 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question for SwisterTwister. I am not in principle opposed to a redirect, and am not trying to pick a fight, but is there a solid policy based reason to choose Stevie Ray Vaughan instead of Jimmy Vaughan? Is it a subjective judgment on your part that one son is more famous than the other? I have struggled with this issue in the past when there are multiple redirect targets. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with and I have to say I'm more familiar with Stevie but, in any case, Stevie is probably the best. SwisterTwistertalk—Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is because I was fortunate enough to see the Fabulous Thunderbirds perform at the San Francisco Blues Festival, and then again later that same day in a small nightclub, in the late 1970s. Jimmy deserves respect too. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply has no encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability as presented above, and oppose redirection per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to avoid confusing readers is to redirect to one plausible target then put a hatnote on it pointing to the other target, e.g. {{hatnote|Jimmie Lee Vaughan redirects here, additional material about him may be found at OTHER SON}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It has been asserted that pornographic awards with an article are prima facie non notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Surely if an award is notable enough to meet the standard of an article it is notable enough to meet the standard of WP:ANYBIO. If they are not notable enough to meet the criteria of ANYBIO then it would follow they are not notable enough to meet the standard of a basic article. I am WP:BOLDly testing this double standard through practical application. Savonneux (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ANYBIO requires the award to be "well-known and significant" which is a higher standard than simply being notable. The fact that people assert erroneously otherwise is not reason to open an AfD to make a WP:POINT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N 'Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large.' Presumably that meets "well-known and significant" all in one go. WP:ORG essentially asserts the same thing with more specific examples. Also I'm not doing anything WP:POINTy, all the sources of that article are press releases or from one industry related magazine. That is a failure of WP:ORG. Remember WP:AGF.--Savonneux (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are misinterpreting the notability guidelines. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". To demand that an award is well known or significant (in importance) is a higher standard. You are applying their interpretation one in the same and making a POINT: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUDattention solely from ... media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability Maybe it's just me but Adult Video News doesn't seem to be a general interest publication. WP:ORGverifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization. "Your search - "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award" - did not match any news results.--Savonneux (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Award seems notable, which is the only requirement it needs to meet to qualify for an encyclopedia article. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 06:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have extensively edited the article in question here recently. The FAME Awards were a "well-known", fan-based adult film industry award ceremony (similar in nature to the People's Choice Awards) where hundreds of thousands of adults voted online in a two-step nomination & award process. These awards (many of which were in "significant" award categories) were given out to a virtual whos-who of the modern adult film industry. The awards have received coverage in other trade magazines (such as XBIZ & AVN) in the adult film industry.
Delete. Clear failure to meet the GNG. All sourcing is promotional and associated with the award ceremony itself; all of those heavily "About the 200x Awards" are overt PR feeds, including links to buy award ceremony tickets, program advertising, etc. The ostensible awarding organization, "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment", never really existed. Instead, this is one of several attempts by AVN's parent company to make money staging a second awards show and selling sponsorships, tables, tickets, etc., and ultimately get a broadcast/netcast deal -- which never happened. "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment" gets only a handful of GNews hits, even fewer GBooks hits, and no GScholar hits, undeniable indications that these astroturfed "fan awards" are not treated as significant by independent, reliable sources -- which is the fundamental requirement for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. The reasoning that all the sourcing is promotional because it is all about pornography is incorrect. The awards were reported on by XBIZ, for example, which was not a sponsor of the awards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of the keep arguments are just plain incomprehensible. This article has no independent sourcing, despite eight years of efforts. It may have 20 references, but 15 of them are to archived versions of its own already-defunct website; four are to press releases and announcements posted by its principal sponsor; and the last is a barely retouched version of a press release originally posted on the awards own site (see original text here [28]). We wouldn't accept a bio based on this kind of sourcing; articles on organizations with the level of self-sourcing are routinely speedied, and there's no reason to carve out an exemption for awards of any type. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Failed verification, and it's a mess that's not worth saving. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG, searches found nothing to show notability. Onel5969TT me 13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm finding absolutely nothing on the normal searches. This guy is a complete ghost. He has some lectures up on YouTube but that doesn't establish notability. I searched the links to find if they were linked anywhere but I've got nothing. Definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can't find sources (of any kind) about Muhammad Saqib Bin Iqbal Al-Shaami; only self-published materials about Kanz ul Huda, the organisation founded by Muhammad Saqib itself. Toffanin (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable. ScholarM (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The available sources are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the relevant notability guidelines. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)