Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 December	12 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Dooley[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent JMHamo (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage on Google News. For example, [1], which says he won Best Supporting Actor at the BBC Audio Drama Awards. Also, interviews and such: [2] at The Stage, [3] at Digital Spy, and [4] from Radio Times. Lots more hits from Radio Times, too. I didn't click on them, though. I'm happy with what I found and don't think I need to copy-paste ten URLs into this AfD. Someone should rewrite this page, but it's probably not going to be me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I did a search on Highbeam, which gave over 200 newsitems. Items specifically about him in the Huffington Post (which I added to the article), The Telegraph and The Guardian. Article has sufficient sources to show relevance. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG - The article's been in a crap state since Misfits was on (which was in 2013!) and so it needs to be redone but either way judging by the results on Google I'd say notability's there[5]/ –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sweet[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the above, nothing to suggest better notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dressing up as Britney Spears and having sex might have helped you get a prom date 10 years ago, but it doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dressing up as Britney Spears and making some crappy porno doesn't make you notable! .... It just makes you (Redacted) really!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Starr[edit]

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

Fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements for ponographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, no awards, just scene-related nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Claimed "mainstream" credits are non-featured roles in non-notable films, mostly if not entirely softcore erotica. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability ...., Anyway she fails PORNBIO & GNG so delete./ –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temptress (actress)[edit]

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

Non notable. Fails gng and pornbio, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not satisfying porn biography guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability ...., Anyway she fails PORNBIO & GNG so delete./ –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and even the porn bio SNG low bar. Carrite (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Luv[edit]

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

Nominations don't count as the award win is not a significant award and the category was only awarded twice anyway. Therefore fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not come close to passing the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better notability here as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NightMoves awards are marginally notable at best, and fall well below the "well-known/significant" standard of PORNBIO. During the extensive discussions leading up to the most recent revisions of that guideline, there was no support for treating them as meeting the standard. Moreover, this is a "Fan Award", meaning it is based on an easily manipulated website poll run by an unimportant local magazine. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is actually the first year that we've apparently ever had an actual Wikipedia article about the NightMoves Awards, so I don't know that we've had any recent AfDs that have actually determined that they are not "a well-known industry award" ceremony. The specific award category in question here does not appear to have been a long-term award category though, and the subject here apparently won the "Fan's Choice" version of it (not the "Editor's Choice" version of it), which may mean that it might have been a less "significant industry award" category. Given the number of blue-links in the NightMoves Award Wikipedia article, the award ceremony does appear to have, so far, been a virtual who's who of the adult film industry, and many other of the NightMoves Award categories have similiar or exactly the same names as other adult film industry award ceremonies. Guy1890 (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. The NightMoves Award is indeed notable. It passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, both mainstream (WTSP & Tampa Bay Times) and adult (AVN & XBIZ). The specific category (Best New Director) is a newcomer award. There is overwhelming consensus favoring the inclusion of newcomer awards in PORNBIO in this discussion with no one arguing that it shouldn't also apply to directors and/or only apply to performers. PORNBIO states "The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry", meaning this guideline isn't just about porn performers, it applies to EVERYONE in porn, including directors. Also, the NightMoves Fan's Choice awards aren't an "easily manipulated website poll" as stated above. Here is the 2005 (year in which Bunny Luv AKA Celeste won) online voting ballot. Phone number and address were required fields that year in order to vote, making it extremely difficult to cheat. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - "Extremely difficult to cheat"? Not hardly. My local alternative newspaper tried that a few years ago, and discovered that, for example, the "Best Bail Bondsman" category got lots of entries in the same handwriting from somebody who just spent a few hours while waiting for the phone to ring filling out ballots using names and addresses from his files, and when those ran out he used the phone book. He was caught only because he dropped them off in one big batch, so the handwriting match was obvious. (Why a "Best Bail Bondsman" category? Back when print advertising was dominant, they had a lot of bondsmen advertising, and most of these magazine "awards" are meant to keep advertisers happy. There's no actual verification going on. Do you really think they really called the phone number to check that the ballot was legit? More likely, they sold the phone numbers and addresses to direct mail and telephone solicitors. Lots of magazines do that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That story about your local newspaper is completely irrelevant. You're attempting to discredit the NightMoves Fan's Choice Awards with an unrelated story instead of giving an example actually involving NightMoves. In an effort to discredit other porn awards in the past, you have thoroughly researched them and shared any info you found at AfD (e.g. Urban X Award & UK Adult Film and Television Award). That fact that you couldn't find a specific example for NightMoves indicates that there is none and that you are just speculating. "For awards with multiple rounds of nominations such as the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, only final round nominations are considered" used to be part of PORNBIO#1. The FAME award finalists, just like the winners, were fan voted. The only reason why this was removed from PORNBIO is that all porn award nominations, not just FAME, were excluded from consideration. FAME and other fan voted awards, as long as they are wins, have not been excluded from PORNBIO consideration. If it's a fan award, you think the recipient cheated, if it's an editor award, you think the recipient paid to win. Is there ANY porn award you consider legitimate? Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing the GNG is not the same as being a well known/significant award and in fact there have been a number of recent discussions where minor awards have been rejected in the discussion. This is not a significant award otherwise it would have been issued for more than 2 years. That rather suggests that it is of passing interest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability ...., Anyway she fails PORNBIO & GNG so delete./ –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times (reliable source/independent of the subject) stated that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10] & [11]). The St. Petersburg Times article doesn't mention what the two largest were, though I assume they were AVN and XRCO. Regardless, we've got these 4 well-known/significant industry awards and NightMoves is bigger than at least two of them. If you want to debate the specific award category, that's fine, but the ceremony is definitely well-known/significant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefani Morgan[edit]

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

Scene awards no longer count. Interviews are primary not secondary sources so fails gng and pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No qualifying awards, just nominations and scene-related wins. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vivid_Entertainment#List of Vivid Girls - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. While Debbie Does Dallas ... Again may have been "an iconic or blockbuster feature", there does not appear to be enough other notability for the subject under consideration here at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability ...., Anyway she fails PORNBIO & GNG so delete, (Personally don't see much point in redirecting but guess that's up to the closer.) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also redirect if needed as if she was best known for that, there may not be enough for a solidly acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MCAP (company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only one reference to their own website, tagged for notability for 5 years. Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic questionable material as this is almost even speedy material and the best I found were only several press releases and passing mentions at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam.SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS sources provided or to be found to suggest that subject is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG fails WP:CORP. Searching was complicated a bit by the fact that MCAP is a commonly used abbreviation for "market capitalization". I found a couple of detailed article in a trade publication "MCAP Value-Flex – Mortgage of the Year" and MCAP’s Fusion is Here, directory listings like this, recycled press releases like this and this, and blogged reviews/complaints like the blacklisted complaintsboard.com/bycompany/mcap-mortgage-services-a17060.html and these. Its claim to notability would be as Canada's second largest mortgage company; however lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is a bar. --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Canadian Paul 18:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Rein[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article highlights the craziness happening in the World's Oldest Persons area. Between the visible and hidden (click edit on article to see hidden) claims, Rosa Rein is supposed to be the on the lists for both super old people born in Poland and born in Germany, the oldest Jew at some point, super old people from Switzerland, super old people in the EU (except Switzerland is not in the EU), nth oldest person here there and somewhere and to hold assorted national longevity records. How to sort this all out? Delete the article per WP:NOPAGE (there is barely any bio info to put anywhere), ignore the confusing "record" claims, and reduce the slice and dice lists based on arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with age. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on recent expasion. EEng (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Delete/Merge/Redirect to European list, with the tiny amount of info there is about here. EEng (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes an abundantly clear claim of notability for Rein and provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to back the claim and create an appropriate article. (Personal attack removed) The issues that are raised by Legacypac are properly addressed by editing the article, not by deleting it. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources might that be? Two sources are dead links, one is a few sentences of her 109th birthday (Which would be WP:ROUTINE coverage) and the last one is a GRG table which does nothing to establish notability. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded, retracting comment. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and/or Redirect to one of the five or so lists she's on. No justifying a standalone article. Taking out the unsourced trivia about her longevity leaves you with a name, age and country. Put her on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

- After changes, the current article contains significantly more information then name, age and country. All can be backed up by the sources in the article. Since there are sufficient sources she is relevant, and the people who are interested in her, are interested in her for her age. As such, her biography is interesting information for these readers. Such information cannot be put in a list. Since the article contains relevant info that cannot be put in a list, it is best to maintain a seperate article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing vote to Keep as per your changes. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does seem to be craziness going on. There seems to be an attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles about "oldest people". This one is notable, there are several reliable sources that could be drawn on to expand the article. Regardless of whether you WP:DONTLIKE it or not, oldest people are a topic of interest to Wikipedia readers, and this goes beyond a mere entry on a list. And there also seems to be a campaign to rid the encyclopedia of lists of oldest people. The whole exercise is very WP:POINTy, and is making wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and reeks of WP:OWNership. Jacona (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand There are several available sources regarding Mrs. Rein's longevity:

Rosa, la doyenne suisse (26 March 2005)

Älteste Schweizerin ist 109 Jahre alt (24 March 2006)

Älteste Schweizerin feierte 110. Geburtstag (24 March 2007)

Rosa Rein wird 111 (22 March 2008)

Älteste Schweizerin wird 111 Jahre alt (24 March 2008)

Rosa Rein feiert in Lugano-Paradiso ihren 112. Geburtstag (2 April 2009)

Älteste Schweizerin Rosa Rein kurz vor 113. Geburtstag gestorben (14 February 2010)

Given this amount of information there should be enough to expand this article rather than to delete it. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

All but two of these are a single sentence, and the others appear to say little more than what's in the article now. Can you point out what you think would be added to the article? EEng (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article from this to this. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I look forward to taking a look when I'm off this stupid phone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BIO, WP:GNG - She has received significant coverage in multiple reliable independant sources. I added a mention in a book to the article,a and two articles specifically about her from notable news agencies. -- Taketa (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with other users. I don't understand why user:Legacypac and user:EEng insistently to be erased so much longevity article.--Inception2010 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep - Per WP:BIO , WP:GNG. Legacypac should consider to only apply afd tags to articles that are truly non notable and etc.. not only IDONTLIKEIT. It is a waste of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above keep votes are spot on. Well-sourced, notable, no reason to delete. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this improved version with actual bio info, better sources and less confusing content, is not something I would AfD. good job. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Richter III[edit]

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

Person does not appear notable. Only reference is from firm he works for. WP editor may be related to subject based on username. Bahooka (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:A7. No evidence of notablity at all. There are thousands of attorneys with equal or superior notability who don't have (and shouldn't have) Wikipedia articles. Also likely WP:COI. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say delete on this one, unless the creator or somebody can come up with some real sources. The guy just doesn't appear notable. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BIO - Insufficient coverage in neutral independent sources. I did a Highbeam search which gave no results. I found two mentions in newsitems on google news. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR and WP:TIND. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrider Club[edit]

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

I do not think there are any merit in this article to make it ever worth keeping as everything there is WP:OR, also it is missing WP:V and lacking WP:CITE, making this article not worth existing. A topic that fails WP:GNG. Donnie Park (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT at best as there is some coverage about this but certainly not for better improvement. Notifying tagger Typ932. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or~~ Keep (Note: The membership section bears a striking resemblance to Hells Angels#Membership.) ~~I'd favor a redirect to Motorcycle Club, as the two are essentially the same with the only difference being one involves motorcycles, the other cars.~~ Of course, it could be argued that that difference is substantive in itself, in which case I would argue in favor of a keep with the provision that some sources can be found, because if we have an article on motorcycle clubs, then I'm sure something can be dug up on lowrider clubs. Discant X 11:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at potential sources I'm now convinced there's enough reference material to keep the article, though some rewriting may be in order. No reason to nuke the whole article, it just needs some work. Discant X 03:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand where you're getting at, the big issue with this is that nothing of these are sourced, so unless something is done, I will have stand by my decision to delete. Donnie Park (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of promising sources at the google book search results. I don't have time to do a thorough search right now, and I can't guarantee that everything in the article will be able to be substantiated, but I feel like there's probably enough info out there to merit an article here, even if it means blowing the whole thing up. I'd like to give it a go but I may not have time over the weekend. Discant X 02:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give DiscantX more time to edit the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm working on it slowly. I might be able to get more done Sunday. Discant X 06:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Soul Survivors (Denver Band)[edit]

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

Do not mistake this with the Pennsylvania band, this group had no charting singles are barely mentioned in any sources. Two sources are a variation of discogs and the other two are for another band. Clearly fails notability.ABriefPassing (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Soul Survivors from Denver can be considered notable. This band was effectively the group who would team up with Randy Miesner to form the Poor. Two of their members later went on to play on New Riders of the Purple Sage Well-known historian Richie Unterberger did a biographical write-up on this band in AllMusic. I also included book references from Mike Markesich's Teenbeat Mayhem. I am not closed to the possibility of merging the article with the one on the Poor, but deletion should not be an option. But even if kept as a stand-alone article, it has its merits. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep - Although there is a point that some references are toward another band, it does help chronologically tell the story about all bands. At the very least, a merger should be allowed since it ties in with The Poor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [12] refers to such a group in Denver, for example. [13] ditto. Looks like they meet WP notability standards as a result. Collect (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a decent-sized writeup in Allmusic is sufficient for coverage for a long-defunct band such as this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article currently looks acceptable enough to not make it a deletion priority, certainly several other articles of concern existing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More reason to keep: I've found some additional information about band roster and have expanded the test

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as unsourced BLP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Wong[edit]

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

I was actually PRODing this until I noticed the first AfD and it's certainly time for a new one since November 2005. My original PROD: "Nothing to currently suggest fully satisfying model notability guidelines and the best my searches found were only a few trivial local news.". Notifying the only still active past AfDers Yamaguchi先生 and Herostratus. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an insufficiently sourced WP:BLP so I think can and should be deleted on that basis alone... actually it can, should, and basically must be PROD'd on that basis alone, if I remember the rule properly. However, it appears that there may have been other sources in earlier versions. I've not the interest to look for them though. As to her merits above and beyond the lack of sources, I guess she might be borderline notable... IMO we have to have to keep in mind that lack of stature in the English-speaking world is not indicative of lack of stature generally... she's possibly borderline notable in the far east. I'd keep it if the question was strictly notability. But the lack of sources requires a deletion here. Article can be re-created anytime anyone has the motivation to get some sources. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am happy to draft/Userfy upon request. kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Online[edit]

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

This article does not have independent sources to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company has notability:

The Daily Telegraph - Is the Apprentice winner doomed to fail?
Daily Mail - Lord Sugar gets it wrong hiring Wright: The old fashioned virtues of tights lose out to the internet in the final of The Apprentice

These are major British newspaper with significant coverage. The article definitely needs work though. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Apprentice UK winner set this company up, it is just a marketing agency with little sales. Maybe one day it will be a notable company, but probably not, and now not even remotely notable. There are a few refs related to the apprentice as expected. Already deleted once, nothing has changed from what I can tell. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if actually needed as none of this suggests solid independent notability for a better notable and acceptable article yet. Notifying past AfD users Tom Morris, AllyD and Michig. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the point of the previous Afd at the end of January, the website had not yet been converted from concerning climbing to that of the SEO firm, so I suppose the previous argument doesn't stand. However, what is noted with the Keep opinion above is some coverage relating specifically to the winning of a reality TV show in December 2014 - which can be discounted as notability is not inherited into that of a subsequent company venture. (All of that is best placed with The Apprentice (UK series ten), if at all.) The article itself is referenced to one subsequent online posting by the company founder (WP:PRIMARY) and an online interview with the same person, about his life since winning the contest. What I am not finding is reliable in depth coverage of the firm itself, as is required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; admitted hoax. Good catch. Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chulalongkorn Delicacy[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism food item, with no citations. Could almost be a speedy deletion, but has lasted long enough to bring to AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author has contacted me off Wiki, admits hoax, and asks for deletion. Permission to post this email given in a followup reply. Name redacted:

Is this Michael Scott Cuthbert? If so, my name is [REDACTED], and I was the one who made the "Chulalongkorn Delicacy" Wikipedia page. No, there is no such thing as a Chulalongkorn Delicacy that is what I said it was. It is, in fact, an inside joke with my Global Studies class and my teacher. If it isn't too much to ask, please just ignore the article and we can each go on our merry ways ignoring the fact that the Chulalongkorn is not corn on the cob, dipped in caramel deep fried and served with nacho cheese.

I followed up by asking her to pass on to her teacher how little creating hoax articles helps to teach about reliability of Wikipedia compared to actually finding some errors and fixing them. Too bad it's a hoax -- it sounded tasty. Now requesting any admin to do a speedy close and delete. @DGG: @Antandrus: -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to LocalLabs. Sandstein 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blockshopper[edit]

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

Almost all sources that talk about this website simply talk about how it violates privacy and enables stalkers. Doesn't otherwise state notability. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's not even anything to suggest minimally better notability here. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of WP:N or WP:COMPANY being met.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LocalLabs, its parent corporation, as Blockshopper does not appear to have adequate notability. If it were notable, its claim to notability would be its surprisingly amoral business practices. It is also possible that LocalLabs is not notable, but that question is for another time. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Extensibility. Sandstein 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extensibility pattern[edit]

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

This page is almost word for word the same as this page from the Perl Design Patterns Book. It has been flagged as a how-to article and for not meeting Wikipedia's standards since 2009. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to extensibility. A quick search does not turn up any sources that corroborate this article's treatment of several well-known software extensibility technologies (covered in other articles) as a single software design pattern, so the article is a how-to guide masquerading as an encyclopedic article by the addition of a novel lede. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Even on the Perl Design Patterns site it is listed under Application Features, not under any of the pattern types. In a search on Google and Google books, design patterns are described as having extensibility rather than there being an extensibility pattern. However the extensibility article doesn't mention design patterns, so a redirect might not be appropriate. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like an essay and seems to contain WP:OR; the rest does seem somewhat like a how-to manual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not this. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Extensibility is a concern in program design, but "design pattern" and "extensibility pattern" do not appear to be terms of art in the field. Not withstanding the article Hummes, Jakob, and Bernard Merialdo. 2000 "Design of extensible component-based groupware." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 9.1: 53-74. The term appears with more regularity in biology and medicine, usually with respect to muscles and other flexible articulata. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranuclear[edit]

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

"Paranuclear" doesn't seem to be a term that is actually used. All references I've found refer back to this wikipedia page except for this one single article referring to Japan as a "paranuclear state". There just isn't enough material here to justify an article. It could potentially be moved to Nuclear capable state or some such which does seem to have at least some use. It also feels a lot like original research. Most of the references that the article has are either dead or barely relevant and I haven't been able to find anything more on this subject. Vectoor (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is certainly important. Clicking the Google books link above shows that the word "paranuclear" in used in cell biology, but not in discussions of nuclear weapons, except this WP article. The importance of the topic is something to consider, but it doesn't seem like secondary sources have treated it as a distinct topic. Maybe a section in Nuclear proliferation on nations that could have nuclear weapons but don't would be justified.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article has the section "Breakout capability" which is kind of the same thing, but seems to be more narrowly defined. In general most of the material in this article is already in the other. Info on how nuclear bombs are made is, I am sure, covered in other articles.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a complete neologism in this context and that shows that this is OR. Andrew D. (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I've been making this argument for some time. Glad to see it's finally happening. The more common term is "threshold nuclear state," but there is no agreed definition. NPguy (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with an account can nominate an article for deletion. Remember to be bold.Vectoor (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Sonik Alimchand[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BLP. Her only claim to significance is having written a book and having collated music pieces for a music album. Certainly not enough to be in an encyclopaedia. kashmiri ^TALK 16:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there hardly seems much to even suggest a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON if ever. The book was just released, and aside from promotion on its release, there is no coverage. It has not been critically reviewed. The earlier CD compilation did not bring Seema Sonik Alimchand significant coverage. I note that in her past she has also been a "freelance voice professional" and self-published a book "Catty KT", neither of which brought her independent coverage. She fails WP:BLPNOTE and does not qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bejnar 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. entirely unsourced and highly promotional Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swachhta Ki Paathshala[edit]

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

Non-notable org, reads like an advertisement JMHamo (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirecting would perhaps require a separate discussion. Sandstein 09:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karachay-Balkars[edit]

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

Recent original reserach WP:SYNTH putting two close officially recogniozed ethnic groups Karachays and Balkars into one. Not a single of 20+ other language wikipedias have such article. True, they have same roots and close history, but they are different nations today. By same logic one may merge Austrians and Germans into same page, and if you try to merge Serbs and Croats into Serbo-Croats (as in "Serbo-Croatian language"), they both cut your throat. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make this a redirect to Balkars, rather than outright deletion to allow merging of content to other pages if needed. But yes, these are different peoples, at least in modern times, although they may have a common origin. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't have to align to other wikis here. This is not a serious argument. Numerous sources using this term are available on the Internet, including Google Books. Also, we actually have an article on the Serbo-Croat language, despite the fact that fervent nationalists reject this term (against the better judgement of linguists). So clearly a keep vote from me. Dorpater (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this page they are mistaken as Alans ("The Alans (Karachay-Balkars)..."). Yes, they speak on different dialects of the same (Karachay-Balkar language (that's why nominator mentioned Serbo-Croatian language as a similar example). If you can provide a few really good RS supporting the claim that "Karachays and Balkars constitute together one Karachay-Balkars nation" - as this page currently tells, I will change my vote. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:POVFORK. The article creator Александр Цикало is a sockpuppet whose been promoting fringe theories at the articles Karachays and Balkars. Krakkos (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Clearly two separate people even when discussed together for geographical or linguistic purposes. See Richmond, Walter (2007). "Russian policies towards Islamic extremism in the Northern Caucasus and destabilization in Kabardino-Balkaria". In Gamme, Moshe (ed.). Ethno-Nationalism, Islam and the State in the Caucasus: Post-Soviet Disorder. pp. 86–101. Hence the article is an affirmatively misleading conflation of history, linguistic similarity and a regional geographic name. Clearly WP:SYNTHESIS and as Krakkos says a WP:POVFORK. No merge necessary as content is already present where it is documented. See Alans article. No redirect, as it would be misleading, even if redirected to the geographic region Kabardino-Balkaria, or to the language article. The article's creation may constitute part of a pattern of WP:Disruptive editing, yet another reason for no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babelgum Online Film Festival[edit]

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

This festival does not exist anymore and none of the links or references work Diana Ringo (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect After that initial buzz around the launch, with Spike Lee on board, this festival sort of drops off the radar, doesn't it? It's already cited in the main article. I'd have no problem with editors adding more festival-related content to Babelgum, with primary refs if nothing else for WP:V, per WP:PRESERVE. But the festival alone doesn't appear to meet GNG, as Kierzek more succinctly notes. Actually, some references do "work." I've easily restored the link to the Business Week/Bloomberg piece -- which appears to have been derived from a Bloomberg-issued news release? -- and the Variety news ref works just fine. But if in fact the festival is defunct, it never garnered enough independent coverage so that WP:NOTTEMPORARY would apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect is necessary since the title starts with the word "Babelgum" which would be the target Babelgum. Didn't have significant coverage when launched, and still does not. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DGG per CSD#A1. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petron High Labor[edit]

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

Article is written like an Advertisement. Zyc1174 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is not even an "article" and barely a stub; a poorly written promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why is this article up for AfD if it doesn't exist? Praemonitus (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Khozam[edit]

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

promotional for non notable individual. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is by her, passing mentions, quotes from her, her talking about herself and press releases. Books lack reviews. No major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. A self-promotion piece which lacks any independent coverage of notability. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level business consultant and speaker, nothing to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional both in its text and in its sources — really, a source titled "Barbara Khozam > Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% >"?? There is no evidence of actual notability, as determined by sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. This could be a plausible case for a G11 speedy but at this point we may as well go through with the full AfD as that should make it harder to re-create. (Also, there is some weirdness with the article history, noted on a thread on ANI — apparently this was created by moving an unrelated redirect, possibly in the misguided belief that doing so would evade new-page patrol.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete and delete as TNT at best until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowing... -- per David Eppstein's reasons, though SwisterTwister's remedy is more in light with my opinion. Nothing notable there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Riudavets[edit]

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

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

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

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be consolidated into List_of_Spanish_supercentenarians#Joan_Riudavets where I have already added his short bio. The content about him not being the oldest person in Spain and who succeed who as oldest where is just confusing and best handled on the appropriate list elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources; passes WP:GNG. Enough relevant information to justify a standalone biography. Fail to see how WP:NOPAGE applies. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG for a stand alone article; consolidate as a passing mention if need be, as Legacypac suggests above. Kierzek (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does he fail WP:GNG? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His only claim to fame is living a super long time. Everything barely worth saying fits in a paragraph. The rest of the prose about other people is better presented in a list. Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His only claim to fame... So he does have a claim to fame? He is notable then. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Claim". "Claim." EEng (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Europe list, there being nothing worthwhile in the article that can't be accommodated there (possibly with a minibio). EEng (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As usual remove the OR, SYNTH and TRIVIA and there is insuffiicent encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article, therefore clearly fails NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE is just a guideline. Recent AfD discussions like this one show that many editors believe that standalone articles about people notable for longevity can be perfectly acceptable, so there's no "clearly" about this. Please explain how the information in this article would be better presented elsewhere. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep Joan Riudavets is not only was world's oldest man but also being oldest man ever in Europe and seventh-oldest man in history. clearly notable. because Joan Riudavets was world's oldest man, differ from other two people who has been merged to List of Spanish supercentenarians#people (Galo Leoz and Manuela Fernández-Fojaco). there is no reason and need to delete / merge this article. In addition, other Afd of world's oldest man recordholder was closing as keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Painter (supercentenarian). (Sakari Momoi and John Painter both lived to be 112 years and 5 months, one year and 10 months younger than Joan Riudavets.)--Inception2010 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

If he is so important surely he deserves a mini-bio on the Spanish page - yet you deleted that??? I've restored it because it is central to this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article makes a clear and distinctive claim of notability. The claim is backed up by a broad range of reliable and verifiable source. The article is of ample size to provide the significant coverage appropriate for the topic. The article as it stands meets every possible aspect of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really? the oldest person in the world, oldest Spanish man ever and seventh oldest man ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Spanish supercentenarians or some similar list. The coverage that I see/can find for this individual indicates some measure of notability, but not the need for a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources sufficient to demonstrate notability and support separate article. Artw (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In spite of my best efforts to show how Mr Riudavets can be well presented in the proposed target article Inception2010 insists on deleting anything about him [14]. Here is a link to how I had it for this discussion and hopefully long term. [15] Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me recommend to my fellow editors that it's well worth following the link to take a look. EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep One of the oldest men of all time, well sourced article and notable due to having been the oldest living man in the world at one time. 930310 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

How well sourced it is isn't the question -- it's whether there's anything worth saying about the subject that can't be as well or better presented in the appropriate list. As it is the article says almost nothing about the subject -- what in the sources to you see being added? EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the World's Oldest Men, his notability is still noticed some ten-odd years after his death, as shown in this 2014 article [16]; therefore, the article passes WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't being questioned. EEng (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the oldest men ever. sourced are great. User Legacypac should consider only placing Afd tags at articles that are truly in question of notability etc.. not only apply IDONTLIKEIT.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is irrelevant since notability isn't the basis of the nomination. EEng (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the case at hand not just vote against all my AfDs and attack me because you like excessive coverage of pageants. I'll take further such comments as disruptive behavior. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider that disruptive behaviour you should consider not sending me disruptive notifications of non existing personal attacks. A suggestion that is well based should be considered as such, a suggestion. Now to the matter at hand, EEng do not call my opinion irrelevant, it makes no sense and it is truly irrelevant as I do not even mention notability but the fact that he is oldest and the sources are great. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not even mention notability". Um, yes you do. Perhaps you should look at your own comment again. EEng (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are not based in policy or practice. Sandstein 09:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gia DeSantis[edit]

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

Non-notable radio/TV personality. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gia+DeSantis%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=aVdXVurnOsX8oASgk5jQAg Shows she is notable . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstrated notability. The link above doesn't show any significant coverage of the subject. Mosmof (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usterday (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's on the edge, but being a DJ on KROQ makes them notable. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? In what capacity did she work as a DJ? Both references only list her as working there nothing specific. Just because she worked as a DJ at a major radio station does not make her notable. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does!!! KROQ can have their pick of top ranked DJ's and that isn't the only claim here, just one of them. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proof that she was also host of a popular video show in Los Angeles: YouTube Channel playlist of Request Video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottlecaps (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even try to hide their conflict of interest with the article's subject. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BASIC. The sources are not about the subject they seem to mostly be about the shows etc and have no significant coverage of the person. Jbh ^Talk 22:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Bell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television chef, based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES without even the first hint of a reliable, independent source anywhere in the entire article. Further, while the overall tone isn't blatant enough to trigger my CSD G11 reflex, there are some passages of obvious advertorial writing here (e.g. "He is very passionate about creating globally inspired dished but, using local ingredient with a large emphesis on sustainable seafood.") He might certainly qualify for an article that was sourced properly, but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no validity to the argument, "He might certainly qualify for an article that was sourced properly". WP:ARTN states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content can make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." If sources exist, he's notable. A quick search turns up plenty of articles. ( See here, here, here, and here or just search for yourself.) T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VancityBuzz: non-notable blog that can never contribute toward notability at all. CBC article: glancing namecheck in an article otherwise not about him. Ottawa Citizen: Q&A-style interview in which he's talking about himself, which is a type of sourcing that AFD deprecates as unable to carry notability; it represents the subject talking about himself and is thus subject to the same PR problems as any self-published source (so it would valid only for supplementary verification of facts after all of the other sourcing around it has already vaulted him over GNG, and cannot contribute toward the GNG.) Vancouver Sun: article that's talking about his personal life rather than anything that would constitute a notability claim, so it's acceptable for confirmation of facts but does not contribute anything toward getting him over an inclusion test. Further Google search results: I see lots of glancing namechecks and blogs and non-WP:RS publications like cartt.ca, and not a lot of substantive coverage of the type it takes to actually satisfy GNG in a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Vancity Buzz is a reliable source, but let's assume it's not. We've still got CBC, The Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, CTV, The Telegram, The Guardian, The Winnipeg Free Press, Metro, The Province, etc. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kołodziej[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Fighting in WW2 doesn't make him notable nor does his various club boxing championships. The closest thing to notability was once winning two fights at an amateur Polish championship before losing. That might be enough to technically meet WP:NBOX but that criteria is so broad that I think either more boxing success or significant independent coverage is required to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOX. The guidelines exist for a reason. The community has set that standard and I think it should be respected even if personal opinion is that it is too broad. If the guideline does not work, then the guideline should be improved as opposed to just not following it - otherwise there is no point in having the guidelines. I think this is the kind of article the guidelines work well for. No editor is going to go to Poland and look-up mid-1930s boxing records to see if sources exist. The presumption is that they do exist because WP:NBOX is met. If someone wants to rebut that presumption, then by all means go to Poland and do first hand research to establish that the sources do not exist (reminder you need to be fluent in Polish to do so). However, with WP:NBOX being met the article should stand unless show otherwise. RonSigPi (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the burden of proof is on those who claim notability, which you seem to want to reverse. In addition, you're asking to prove a negative which is generally not possible. Do we even know if this was the Polish national championship? He appears to fail WP:GNG, although I admit searching the internet for a pre WW-II fighter isn't necessarily conclusive. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the burden of proof is on those that claim notability. This burden is met by showing that it is to be presumed that the person is notable by WP:NBOX being met. Then the burden shifts for those that want to rebut the presumption. To that, yes - one cannot prove a negative, but that is not being asked. Making reasonable effort to show that the relevant sources were reviewed and nothing to establish WP:GNG was found is sufficient. To make such an effort, I think one would need to search the above-mentioned time-appropriate Polish sources. Until those are hard copy sources are actually checked and it is determined nothing is found, then I think we need to keep since the presumption is met. RonSigPi (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hakala[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Even by Dolovis' brazen non-standards, this one is a doozy. One season of Division II college hockey. A season and a half of undistinguished mid-minors play as a fourth-liner. What the hell? No source with as much as a SENTENCE about this obscure, NN player. Demonstrably Dolovis was obsessed with creating Tulsa Oilers' related articles, but sheesh. Ravenswing 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY or GNG but to be fair at the time this one was created the requirement was only 100 games in any pro league which he had. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just don't see the need to cater to Dolovis' notion that he'd "win" Wikipedia if he created the most stubs. Neither you nor I go through (say) the all-time roster for the Springfield Indians and start creating stubs for every guy with 200+ games: Randy Miller, George Wood, Jim Holdaway, Gordon Tottle (hm, at least he was a 2nd Team AHL All-Star), John Rodger, Doug McMurdy, Tony Schneider ... Ravenswing 21:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soulscar[edit]

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

Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article as my searches simply found no better coverage aside from some interviews and other passing mentions here. As heavy metal is not my area, I'm notifying users interested with heavy metal for their insight Drmies, The Bushranger, Peridon and The Blade of the Northern Lights for any comments they may have. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical's much more my thing, but a quick look here doesn't look especially notable to me? Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Delete too. I've not heard of them (which isn't a deletion reason, of course), but I can't find anything that looks like good coverage in 16 pages of ghits. (I eliminated a fictional character, a garage, and some other irrelevant stuff from the search.) Looks like a project that never really made it. Both references in the article seem to be dead now, by the way. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got nothing from my usual locations either. It's a shame, they're a reasonably good band, but nothing approaching Wikipedia notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1960s/1970s Miles Davis is more my thing, but thanks for the ping. Much depends on whether Galy Records fits the bill of WP:BAND #5, since (according to Encyclopaedia Metallum) they have two records with them. But BAND says "may be notable", not "should have an article"; and Galy is a bit iffy since they only exists since 2002 and the first Soulscar album on that label is from 2004; and there's nothing verified in the article or--apparently--elsewhere, so I'm going with Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting here that it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band over NMUSIC; it's the quality of reliable sourcing that you can provide to verify the claim. A band can release 100 albums, and still fail WP:BAND #5 if the sourcing isn't there to support an article about them. But what we've got for sourcing here is two deadlinks to sites that don't sound like they were all that reliable even when they were live, and nothing better on the Googles. And that adds up to a delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about bare bones in terms of reliable sources. Live Vans (Vancouver's Community-Driven Concert Calendar) is about the best source. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NMUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Mask (1992 film)[edit]

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

Another Warren Chaney-related article (see also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). It's poor form to remove a whole bunch of content from an article right before nominating it for deletion. That was not my intention, but I'm also loathe to restore that content just for the sake of decorum. Here is the previous version of the article. I started looking through the articles of the now-blocked socks for the usual glut of unreliable catalog/database/primary sources that characterizes the bunch and didn't even realize I had removed all of the sources from this one. It looks to fail WP:NFILM, but at best this is a WP:TNT scenario, having been created/written primarily by a sock puppet and having no reliable sources at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film is mentioned in an overall article about Chaney in this local paper and it's briefly mentioned here, but that looks to be about it as far as coverage goes. Given that this is one of several sockpuppet created articles and that there are major, major issues with verifying claims in all of the articles, I think that deleting this is the best option here. A redirect can be created later after the issues with the main article have been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find anything that isn't already listed here, and I agree that it's not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, no notability. I did a google search in site:news.google.com for "warren chaney" and most of the hits were from this local paper from his hometown, the Kentucky New Era. It seems like they recycle mundane stories about him ever few years and generally write whatever he says in an interview. Permstrump (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: This same local paper has reported numerous times that Chaney has a PhD in psychology and is a practicing psychologist, but his PhD dissertation from UNT is available online and it says his PhD was in management. Even if he did get some kind of combined degree in UNT's behavioral science program, which there's no documented indication of, it's a clear misrepresentation to call him a psychologist. Therefore, I definitely do not consider that local paper a reliable source, especially for the numerous articles that were clearly based off of an interview with Chaney, many of them written by the same journalist, Lowell Atchley. It's the paper for the small town her grew up in and then kept writing articles on him for years and years after he moved away. Why was he so interesting to that one journalist? I think either the journalist believed all of it and thought he was a local kid who became a big celebrity or Chaney would just call him up and ask him to do a story. Permstrump (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non notable entry in what I am starting to term 'the Chaneyverse' or, perhaps 'Chaneypedia' Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Box office collection is $32.3 million. I think it will be unfair to say Delete.--Musa^Talk ☻ 20:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for that? I just looked up box office numbers for 1992, I don't see the movie there. [17] Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What box office? It was a 6-part miniseries not a theatrical release. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fun fact: The sole imdb review (glowing praise, of course), was added the same week the Americamovie website was registered and the same week many of these articles were created. And wouldn't you know it, that reviewer's only other reviews were for other titles currently under examination or at AfD (also glowing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

$32 million is kind of a lot for a film that's not in Allmovie. In fact, that's more than Candyman, Captain Ron, and Kuffs grossed. Now, I may very well be the only living person who liked Kuffs, but it's at least a vaguely familiar title to film-goers. I think it's kind of weird that Box Office Mojo has absolutely no data on this film's gross. I'm not quite as quick as other editors here to label things a hoax, but I seriously doubt that this obscure Chaney film outgrossed Kuffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Well, I never heard of Kuffs but I agree with your sentiment. :) Rhododendrites, check out the dates of the reviews for his books on goodreads.com. They're all made by an account called Robert Stroud that was created on the same day that he rated all of Chaney's books 5 stars and then never rated another book again. BTW apparently the real Robert Stroud was a notorious serial killer. I just noticed there's supposedly a book called Warren Chaney on goodreads and the description says it's based off of his wikipedia content. Permstrump (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, but you've heard of Captain Ron. I see how you roll. I bet you never heard of Shakes the Clown, either. For shame, for shame. By the way, it's pretty common for people to republish Wikipedia's content. It's totally legal, but it's kind of pointless. Like buying a print magazine about the Internet. I swear, that is something only a baby boomer would do. But, no, a book that republishes Wikipedia's articles is meaningless. Happens all the time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Kuffs, either. Maybe you're using the film classics Captain Ron and Shakes the Clown to throw us off the scent of your hoax... The Kuffs article is probably filled with references to "NinjaRobot Enterprises" and "Slater Production Inc."... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted (1991 film)[edit]

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

This is another Warren Chaney related article and the issues are the same. For more information on this, see the AfDs for Space Patrol Chronicles, America: A Call to Greatness, and Dynamic Mind.

Long story short, this was an article created by an SPA and while it makes some grandiose claims, ultimately it lacks any truly independent reliable sources. All of the links refer to either IMDb or the filmmaker's website. The only review is posted on the filmmaker's website and cannot be verified as existing anywhere else. It's possible that the review might not even exist, given the overall trouble with Chaney related articles. A search brought up nothing to show that this film is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things to show that this film exists like this routine mention, but not anything to show that this film passes NFILM. Given the overall issues with the Chaney related articles (which have all been created or heavily edited by promotional sockpuppets), I'm arguing for this to be deleted and a redirect created later after the issues with Chaney's article have been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, I gave it a good go, but I don't see much of anything. There's this article in the Echo, but I don't think that's enough to satisfy the GNG. The Echo article acknowledges that it wasn't popular theatrically, which means we're probably not going to find much coverage. If there is offline coverage that we're not finding, the article can be recreated with better sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nope, just another non notable movie from the Chaneyverse. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails Wikipedia verifiability criteria. No reliable source that this movie was ever released. The single review at Chaney's hoaxy America: A Call to Greatness website is by an unknown writer for an unknown publication and appears dubious. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rosenau[edit]

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

Article tagged as possibly non-notable since May 2008. Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG - all citations provided are either non-independent, don't discuss the subject at all, or are non-reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. I'm not even sure if all the claims within the article, if proven, establish notability (it basically says that he runs a company that designs stuff), but in any event, all the reliable, independent sources (not that there are many) either don't mention Rosenau at all or only make a trivial mention. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; article created by suspect SPA. No indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veer Zaaracha Zengat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

and searches through WP:INDAFD: "M.M." "Harshad Sawant" "Anand Naik"

Delete for failing WP:N. While rather than a film this appears to be a stage play based on the same mythology, it lacks coverage in reliable sources. IF they come forward, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability or even existence. Given the author's track record, I have my doubts about the latter. Favonian (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scott Andrews[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be a notable enough person for an article. QueenCake (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little that I can find but primary sources and blogs. Might be of some significance in very small circles, but largely is not notable. Discant X 11:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♠ 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popak keyboard[edit]

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

No independent sources attest notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be more sources in Russian that would attest to its notability, but I don't find any in English sources. That's not surprising since it's a Cyrillic keyboard, but still doesn't meet GNG. LaMona (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can not find anything in Romanian or Russian either.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Railroad[edit]

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

Article about a band which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and which is resting entirely on primary sources like their own webpage, their own Facebook, a profile on JamBase and a directory of sound clips on archive.org — no indication of any reliable source coverage has been shown here. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia just because they existed — inclusion is governed by the availability of RS coverage which demonstrates that they've passed a notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. I can only find social media and ticket sales sites. As the article says, they are entirely self-published. If they get picked up by a label AND have a charted hit, then an article makes sense. LaMona (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article to suggest this band meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for artistes, and nothing I found nothing when I searched for sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. Article creator wasn't notified about deletion noimnation - done now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this suggests fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines and also only draft and userfy if actually needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there's strangely been no input on this, there has been substantial time allowed for discussion and no objections to deletion have been raised whatsoever, therefore I will treat this as we would an uncontested PROD. Swarm ♠ 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sumana[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS to support a profile Usterday (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added an interview in Rx Muscle magazine. I think it helps, but probably not enough.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darrel Reid[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political strategist. While a deputy chief of staff in the PMO could certainly be eligible for a Wikipedia article if the volume of sourcing were strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG, it's not a position that confers an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article just because the person exists — but of the four sources here, three of them just namecheck his existence rather than being coverage of him, and the fourth is a primary source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A quick google search provides a fair amount of coverage from Reid's tenure as president of Focus on the Family Canada, definitely more than a namecheck. Graham (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hataya Mitsuo Yoshitoki[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Coverage is from primary sources so WP:GNG is not met and I don't see anything to shows he meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find significant independent coverage to show that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Nothing in the article or its sources supports a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of in-depth coverage in third-party sources, so WP:GNG requirements are not satisfied. --DAJF (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Agarwal[edit]

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

Claims cannot be verified and appears to be promotional. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the person does appear to be a blogger on India tech articles for the WSJ, that's not enough to qualify as notable per WP:JOURNALIST because no independent review of their work is available. Almost nothing else appears verifiable. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Future[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better at all but that's not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Starkey[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Article only created because subject is Ringo Starr's daughter.

There is nothing in this BLP that justifies its inclusion; apart from her famous parent, there is nothing remotely significant about the subject. There are only a few sources in the article at present: a couple of tabloids mention a small boutique that she briefly co-owned, and one that says she had a tumour removed. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A famous last name can't buy you (wiki)love. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. From WP:NOTINHERITED: Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. There isn't anything in the article that would be enough for someone not related to a Beatle to be considered notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low-profile former shop owner, no evidence of notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Boulton[edit]

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

WP:BLP, actually an evident WP:AUTOBIO if you compare the creator's username to the article's "current work" section, of a magazine publisher and film producer. There are legitimate claims of notability being made here, but the problem is that they aren't being sourced properly. Almost everything here is resting on primary sources, rather than reliable source coverage in which he's the subject — for instance, his editorship of Genre cites a mere repetition of the name Genre as the "source" for itself, rather than any news article in some other publication writing about his editorship of Genre; a purported appearance on Anderson Cooper 360 is sourced only to a simple repetition of the name Anderson Cooper 360 rather than to any independent media coverage of his appearance on that program; purported appearances on "several (unnamed) CBS programs" is sourced only to a repetition of the name CBS rather than any non-affiliated media coverage of those appearances; and on, and so forth. The creator appears to deeply misunderstand what "sourcing" means on Wikipedia; the article was previously tagged for blpprod for lacking any actual sourcing, but the creator removed that tag with the claim that the article was well-sourced. But it isn't, because things can't just be sourced to themselves. And the creator also needs to familiarize himself with our conflict of interest rules, in particular the parts that militate against starting an article about yourself. Better sourcing might certainly exist in subscription news databases that I don't have access to, but Google News offers up almost exclusively glancing namechecks and blogs rather than substantive coverage in real media. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can repair it with proper reliable source coverage beyond anything I've been able to locate, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all my searches noticeably found links but perhaps not enough for a notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Creator has modified the sourcing in an apparent attempt to address the concerns raised here, but they didn't actually succeed in doing so — instead of thing-reffed-to-repeat-of-thing, there are now references which include partial detail, but still elide the actual title and exact date of the source content. "Johnson The New York Post 2007, p6", for just one example of the referencing format that now prevails here, is still not an adequate reference — it does not help narrow down which specific article, on which specific date, is being cited, because The New York Post is a daily newspaper which published 365 different "page sixes" in 2007. And the creator also now appears to have WP:SPA puppets making "nominations not to delete" on the article's talk page, to boot — but that's not a thing, and transparent SPA puppetry isn't a respected or effective tactic either. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second update: creator responded to this comment by adding the dates to the references, while still eliding the article titles. I have to give him some credit for trying this hard, but there's still more to be done and the WP:COI is still an issue. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's NYTimes article. Basically, no, not notable. Plays up all of his scandals (true? who knows?) But scandals aren't on WP's notability list, and I don't find anything else that he has done that would confirm notability. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Condylar decompression[edit]

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

WP:NOT. We are not a guide of how to, which is what the article is. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily delete and allow restart for a better article as this may actually be acceptable and have potential but simply not with its current version. For example, I found some helpful links here and here. SwisterTwister talk 08:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a very minor re-write it would be a very decent stub. Brycehughes (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've zapped the how-to bit, and added a few of many available refs. The topic is well attested. No doubt someone with suitable knowledge can write something decent on it, but notability is not an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the article has been improved to where it qualifies as establishing notability and a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisnotatest (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WFD World's Fastest Drummer Extreme Sport Drumming[edit]

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

No indication of any reliable secondary coverage. Promo. Very unfocused John from Idegon (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title should go on the list of crazy titles. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search indicates enough sources over a long enough period of time and a wide enough range (i.e. music sources and mainstream newspapers in the homes of notable speed drummers) for this to pass WP:GNG. I agree that the article as it is written now is a bit WP:Promotional, but if that were tidied up what is left would still meet GNG and be encyclopedic. Aspirex (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Aspirex's reasoning. Voyaging^talk 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 09:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi Sailcat[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NMUSIC JMHamo (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absent some attempt at a reasoned analysis of notability issues. Article has already been tag-bombed by one editor which the inexperienced new editor was still trying to write it, and this piling on without affording a decent opportunity to return to work on the article approached WP:BITE territory. In the absence of any evidence that the nom has done the caliber of searching required to verify the non-notability of a 1970s session musician, this nomination shouldn't even be considered. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please show all the reliable sources you found then... JMHamo (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you didn't comply with WP:BEFORE, and you support WP:BITING new editors by giving them less than four minutes to write their first article. The WMF should spend more of its time trying to stop this sort of nonsense than working on junk like the Visual Editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you are making assumptions about me that aren't true.... JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Article as it stands is way below the standard for mainspace, for lack of MoS compliance and, importantly, lack of sources. That's enough even to delete - and two different editors have tagged the article for speedy deletion - although userfying will be a kinder option towards a new editor. Note that a mere 193 hits for "Nairobi Sailcat" on Google, none RS, may make proving WP:NBIO quite challenging. kashmiri ^TALK 10:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kashmiri: Why Userfy when you can't find Reliable Sources yourself after trying? If it's non-notable, which it seems to be then it's probably always going to be. The burden is on the article creator to prove it's notability. JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: It is a newly created article and I believe the original editor should be given an opportunity to work the text through to an acceptable standard. Maybe sources do exist to prove notability - Google is not everything - the article is just not yet ready for mainspace IMHO. Userfied drafts are also periodically deleted if not worked on. But I also understand your point, I think it's about the fine line between spam/promo and unsourced good-faith effort - perhaps the two of us see the fine line slightly differently. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As one of those accused of tag-bombing the article, I cannot see any realistic prospect of finding notability here. Whatever searches are made they come up with very little, and if references are so hard to find it seems unlikely that they will be reputable, independent and reliable. I think the best course would be to userfy the current version and persuade the originator to take the text and put it through AfC both to allow time to assemble a reasonable looking draft and to allow considered reviews without the risk of imminent deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and restart when better as my searches instantly found nothing at all. Notifying tagger Velella. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serenay Sarıkaya[edit]

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

This girl has not actually won any pageant, with most of the article detailing how other people won, and how another girl was sent to another pageant instead of her. Her film work seems pretty unnotable, sourced only to the unreliable iMDB. The entire article on the TV series she has been in lacks sources except for two showing it was syndicated. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is the one of most notable actress in Turkey. She has two Altın Kelebek (Hürriyet) rewards. Also, selecting Woman of Year by GQ Turkey magazine in 2014. She is current commercial face of Mavi Jeans. Her last two tv series are very known in Turkey. Also they aired on several countries. She played main characters. AlexandreManette (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some objection off on a user page to me referring to the subject as a girl as the subject is today 24. At the time she was in the pageants the article says she was under 18 which is in fact a child. Anyway, no offense intended. If there are better sources and the article can be upgraded, great. I don't mind a good article at all. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can expand it. Just give me more time. Obviously she is one of the best actresses in Turkey and is also popular among the people of Middle East and the Arab World. I don't know about the beauty competition, maybe it's just a self-made story. Keivan.f^Talk 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac Take a look at this article again. Do you still think that we should delete it? Keivan.f^Talk 12:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She look quite notable now. Good job! I'll Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geno Vicario[edit]

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

Non-notable bio on a DJ that is getting started. I'm not finding adequate sourcing material when checking.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard McFly (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established using citations from reliable sources (books, journals, magazines, newspapers, etc...general websites usually don't qualify because anyone can write anything on those).
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common Language (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, non-notable; unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches also noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged this page earlier but, was deemed notable. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two albums on Blast First would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. They may not have received much coverage since the dawn of the internet but there is likely to be print coverage around from the era that they were putting out records. --Michig (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two releases on Blast First, the EP only has three tracks, two of which were also on the later full album. So it's arguable that only the full album release would be relevant towards WP:NMUSIC, not quite meeting it. I agree that there's likely pre-internet coverage out there somewhere - the challenge is locating it to satisfy the coverage for WP:GNG. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I had thought both albums had been released on Blast First. Yes, Google is often a poor guide to pre-internet notability. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two regular albums. one album on Mute Records. No reason for deletion. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with offer to userfy. Only one album was on a major label, so does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. I believe that pre-internet references likely exists - but until they can be tracked down so as to satisfy WP:V, this does not currently meet WP:GNG. Potential userfication will allow for further work to locate any such sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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