Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 December	16 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Andreescu[edit]

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

Not a notable player per Tennis project guidelines. As a junior, a player is notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title or have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings. JGab12 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not currently pass the notability guidelines for tennis players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NTENNIS - Her name is mentioned in news items about her performances, but there are insufficient in dept sources about her to meet general notability guidelines. She did not win a junior grand slam or rank top 3. As a pro she has not yet won a tournament. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:38, 21 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} 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GeekWrapped[edit]

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

Article was created by a (presumably paid) sockfarm (investigation)

After peeling away the passing mentions and promotional junk, there's very little left. They do contests and freebies with a few other companies, and some sites have published "gift-guide" type puff-pieces with/about them, but independent coverage of the company is limited to one brief Daily Dot article and one brief Gizmodo article, which are both on the flimsy side as reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I only found some links at News and browsers, nothing to suggest a currently better article. Notifying tagger Bazj. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sock spam. Bazj (talk) 09:36, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Barnim[edit]

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

Was part of a mass AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, which was closed as no consensus. This particular interchange is non-notable, just one of tens of thousands around the world. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as with the others recently nominated, German interchanges by and large fail to be notable. Imzadi 1979 → 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:29, 21 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} 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Bayerisches Vogtland[edit]

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

Was part of a mass AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide which was closed as no consensus. This particular interchange is non-notable, just one of tens of thousands around the world. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as with the others recently nominated, German interchanges by and large fail to be notable. Imzadi 1979 → 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:28, 21 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} 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Bad Dürrheim[edit]

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

Was part of a mass AfD which was closed as no consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. This is a non-notable interchange, just like tens of thousands of others around the world. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as with the others recently nominated, German interchanges by and large fail to be notable. Imzadi 1979 → 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:28, 21 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) Ya sh ! 12:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casolari[edit]

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

Quite unuseful disambiguation. 333 -blue 23:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks like an incorrectly formatted surname page to me. It can be refactored very easily. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's actually a {{surname}} page, useful for indexing people who have the same surname. I've cleaned it up a bit to put it more in line with MOS:APO. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a now-properly-formatted surname page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 22 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 redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District. MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure[edit]

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

Really this is too soon. Schools close all the time, yes there was a terrorist threat but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this type of event does not warrant a standalone article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - "Too soon" is not a reason to delete an article but, I do agree this incident doesn't warrant a page of it's own at this point. A section at Los Angeles Unified School District would be sufficient. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just so you know as a BC native, my school got closed down for four month and why isn't there an Wikipedia article for that?Ueutyi (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was it closed because someone panicked when he receive a hoax threat via email?Edison (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment There is an inherent prejudice against articles about current news events. While it is likely chaos caused by a panicked school board (affecting 640,000 students), we don't know what is the true story yet. It has been judged a hoax by the LAPD. What we can justify is covering such a major event, hoax or not, because it clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm avoiding a keep vote for now because I don't want to keep a junk article, but as future ramifications warrant, there is no reason for wikipedia to panic and remove it prematurely. Trackinfo (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PURGE WITH FIRE (Delete), absolutely not even close to passing WP:NEVENT, and not really a plausible search term. ansh 666 02:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This had all the impact of your average snow day, only with media overhype behind this one and a different closing reason than usual. At best the one line at Los Angeles Unified School District#Received threat is all that needs to be said about it unless something more comes out about bungled handling or the like. Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate section of Los Angeles Unified School District. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A false alarm with no evidence of WP:LASTING interest or effect. Already more than adequately covered with a two-sentence mention in the LAUSD article. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the last editor to add content to the article I would like to apologize to the page creator for drawing attention to it. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Delete. Complete non-event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - AFAIK, this is the first time in history that a threat like this has shut down an entire school district of over half a million people for an entire day. NYPD is criticizing the LAPD for overreacting, and this could potentially result in a change in policy. However, if the article cannot be kept, @Mrfrobinson:, @Mlpearc:, @Ueutyi:, @Ansh666:, @Mrschimpf: and @Gene93k: should give a reason why it should not be redirected to "Los Angeles Unified School District" per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a redirect. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated that I don't believe the current title to be a plausible search term. ansh 666 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Smerge (slight merge) to Los Angeles Unified School District. It deserves a brief mention there. The news media worldwide considered it to be more important than one snow day in terms of the coverage it got. As Jax said, I cannot think of a large city ever shutting down the entire school system (with the lost pay of parents and the potential risks to children, and the possible cost of a additional school day, or loss of federal subsidies based on attendance) as the result of a threat which the New York authorities judged to be a crude hoax. This empowers any vandal worldwide who has access to the internet and some way of falsifying the originating IP. Edison (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand. Easily meets the requirements under WP:NEVENT including WP:LASTING as it has extensive national and international news coverage and will undoubtedly be studied for the different approaches and responses to apparent terror threats by L.A. and New York officials, what's considered credible, etc. I guarantee for years to come this incident will be considered when future terror threats occur and officials have to make decisions. Also there are a lot of aspects to consider including the economic impact of shutting down the districts which caused hundreds of thousands of parents & guardians to adjust their work schedule or take off work completely. Raitchison (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this is a total non-event, about as consequential as to whether a large school district calls a snow day, and it doesn't snow. Those who edit the school district article can determine whether this is important enough to list there. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources suggest notability. Everyking (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and continue to add content as investigation continues. This meets the requirements under WP:NEVENT for the reasons Raitchison mentioned and that there are a large number of recent bomb threats to schools in the news now that may have been inspired by this one. This article should be kept while the investigation of this and the other bomb threats continue and more information comes out. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=school+bomb+threat&tbm=nws.
Keep as per User:Raitchison, and Note similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Brussels lockdown, which was kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly equivalent. The lockdown of a whole capital city following a genuine and major terrorist incident as against closure of a city's schools because of a vague threat that wasn't taken seriously elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - To Los Angeles Unified School District as this article seems like a total mess and isn't very credible, and plain out seems like a news story.

Notes about the article - About the email, the two sentences contradict each other and with no further information it doesn't really seem necessary. With the death of the student Andres Perez, (I know its tragic and may he Rest in Peace) his death was an indirect event that happened and had nothing to do with the threat at all. If these threats happened often, the article is no more than a run of the mill, except this time there was wide-media coverage, but that doesn't make it news worthy of an article by itself. However this information could be used (with improvement) on the LAUSD page, rather than being its own article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This topic is not encylopaedic, and its inclusion in the encylopaedia is an example of WP:UNDUE weight caused by an over-adherence to the twenty-four news cycle on the part of some of our editors. We must remember the Wikipedia is not a news source, and writes with a long term significance in mind. This fails WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that broad gauge perspectives: [1] on this starting to appear, making the even loom more notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other school closings mentioned by that article have articles, nor should this one. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the proper redirect target when we have a nationwide spate of school closures, each to the District? An article on American fears og terrorist attack in response to Paris and San Bernardino? The phenomenon (faux threats, real threats, massive school closings) is real.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's recentism, nothing else. We shan't know anything about a "phenomenon" of this sort for many years. History only becomes apparent after it has passed. You take a journalistic approach where a historical approach is needed. If a "phenomenon" of this sort is truly recorded in the history books in five years' time, then we can write an article on it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District. This course of action seems more sufficient for encyclopedic coverage of this event. Parsley Man (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Of course wikipedia is not a newspaper -- it does not allow original research. However, it does allow us to regurgitate information available on reliable sources, which this article has plenty of. As far as not news -- when is the last time participants here looked at In the news? If I am missing something, please educate me. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

wikipedias in the news covers major encyclopedic events with established notability. Not every world event belongs here nor is it appropriate to add every news story about notable events to pages. For example, adding so and so reported an event to a companies page isn't necessarily appropriate every time they are mentioned in the news. Mrfrobinson (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District per RGloucester. Unencyclopedic at this point. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe we could make a spin-off Wiki listing all school/public institution closures because of vague threats? Absolutely nothing here that can't be covered in Los Angeles Unified School District, and I'm not even sure if that is warranted per WP:NEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After reviewing the discussion, it seems that:

Vincent Canfield has been issued a subpoena
Cortines recently resigned as superintendent
More than one dozen additional schools and districts in the United States have received similar threats days AFTER this happened
An arrest has finally been made in New Mexico
KUTV published an article where numerous experts spoke in detail about how organizations can and should respond to similar threats
@Medeis:, @Adog104:, @RGloucester:, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Mrfrobinson:, @Ueutyi:, @Mrschimpf: and @Gene93k: have yet to indicate why the article should not be redirected

Honestly, it seems to me that there is great potential for policy and procedure changes as a result of this incident, and the publicity that surrounds it. It may not be prudent to delete this article right away, until we know what changes may take place as a result of this incident. Additionaly, with the article being this size, it would be an incredible feat to merge it into Los Angeles Unified School District. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to ping me, at least pay attention to the fact that I said it was up to the editors of the district article to decide if the incident was worth inclusion in the wider article. I still argue that a separate article is entirely unjustified. I am reminded of various NYC blizzard "scandals" of the same effect and magnitude that are mere footnotes to the mayoralties of previous officeholders. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my !vote but have no feeling one way or another about a redirect if others feel it appropriate; nothing new seems to have come to the table (point by point; investigation ongoing, a superintendent's resignation has nothing to do with anything, copycat calls in other districts weren't unexpected, again, investigation ongoing, and who gives a flip what the security pundit community that exists to push their agendas/products cares about this story, let's hear from people actually involved with it?). There's nothing to really merge outside a few lines which can compactly describe what happened in the LAUSD article, but I still feel it has the impact of an average snow day. Nate • (chatter) 09:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get a ping, but coming across this again I still stand by my delete and merge vote. I know Jax these news articles are a touchy subject (since this), but even if a subject is covered it doesn't mean its article worthy by itself WP:NOTNEWS. Besides, these threats happen a lot which has even been stated by news sources. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge or redirect, total non-event as said above. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this had some long-lasting effect, maybe. But it doesn't. You can put the same stuff in the LAUSD article on the grounds that it was the first time it ever happened. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:38, 23 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} 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restaurants in Kozhikode[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Article lists non-notable restaurants. reddogsix (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the pattern of List of restaurants in London, we need individual pages for each restaurant with purely objective and non-commercial content.Prof. Shareef (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! Delete. We aren't directory or tourism guide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and the above reasoning.Charles (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest this is currently necessary. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:NOTTRAVEL. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:50, 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 userfy. Page author has requested userification, and I see no reason not to allow an attempt for it to be improved in userspace. However it does require the issues that brought it to AfD to be fixed before it can be considered for restoration; if it is restored without clear improvements to demonstrate notability through reliable sources, it should be considered eligible for G4-ing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Krystek[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. His rank and instructor do not contribute to his notability. WP:GNG is not met because there is no significant independent coverage. Mere lists of results do not constitute significant coverage. There is no indication of fighting at the highest level (3rd at a state AAU tournament does not qualify). His championships were not at the highest level as they came in senior citizen divisions. I checked the championship events mentioned in the article. There is no indication, even at those event's results pages of what organization sponsored the Miami and Montreal tournaments, although IJF (judo's main governing body) records show they weren't sponsored by it. At the Montreal tournament he finished second out of three competitors, so he might not have won any fights if he got the first round bye. The IJF world masters championship that year was is Suwon, Korea so even for the 75+ judoka age group this wasn't the highest level and he didn't compete in Suwon. His bronze medal at the 2014 IJF Veterans competition came in a division with 4 competitors and his U.S. title in the 75-79 age group had 1 other competitor. Age group titles alone are not considered competing at the highest level. He doesn't appear at all at [2], which is another indication he didn't compete in any top level events. He fails all of the possible notability criteria--WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator (very detailed).Peter Rehse (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom has shown that none of the notability criteria are met. I would add that a one fight, one loss boxing "career" also fails WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
userfy to a subpage for me. I believe with more research notability can be established I don't have the time to argue back and forth for a keep vote. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:CrazyAces489/Jack Krystek per the request directly above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 23 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) 01:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Armenia national football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and while there are many teams not affiliated with FIFA.Could not find even a single match played by this team representing Western Armenia.Another editor an IP has called it a hoax. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - apparently not a hoax. This team is affiliated with CONIFA which consists of a number of unofficial national teams, most of which have their own articles. (I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) If the consensus is to delete, then the article can be recreated after the team plays its first match. I've paraphrased some text lifted from another website and added a reference. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no opinion on the team, but I have verified on the 1. FC Kleve homepage that the last player said to be playing for this national team exists and does indeed play at 1. FC Kleve (in the Regionalliga, the fourth or fifth league in Germany). --ObersterGenosse (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and restart when noticeably better and as there are too many concerns currently to suggest an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A team cannot be notable if it has never played except in extreme circumstances. Could be notable if / when they play first match, but not guaranteed. If recreated should be titled Western Armenia official football team or somesuch. Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the very least, this article is too soon. At the moment, it fails WP:GNG as there is a lack of third-party reliable sources Spiderone 21:17, 22 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 Procedural close Please discuss at WP:Articles for deletion/Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel[edit]

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

This article is slowly getting less and less probable and may be a hoax. The refs do not provide notability - he wrote a couple of article for local newspapers but that is very far from WP:GNG as for his art work gracing museums and galleries - I can find no reference to it anywhere. This is self publicity on a grand and inventive scale and may qualify for a CSD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as self-promotional, and clearly non-notable. The only sources in a search on that name are the subject's blog post. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Scr★pIron^IV 20:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are two AfD debates open for this subject, this one being the second. The other debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep The person is seemed to be a notable writer as I visited the references given below the page. The person is keen in the field of Art. He has created his own work i.e Calligraphy, single pencil sketch and multi-colored drawing. I think this page should be kept strongly.39.33.46.21 (talk) 23:43, 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} 07:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David D Holt[edit]

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

Article does not establish notablility. No third party sources appear to be available either. Publishing books does not mean person is inherently notable. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article even suggest minimal general notability. Notifying tagger Allthefoxes. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are his website an blurbs from publishers or retail sites related to his books. Not enough sources to demonstrate notability for a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 22 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} 00:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rubinovitz[edit]

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

No evidence this autobiography meets WP:PROF notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems that his books and articles had sufficiently significant impact in the robotics discipline to pass the threshold of WP:ACADEMIC. Marokwitz (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google scholar search turns up 163 results. Several papers are heavily cited. As Marokwitz wrote, he has had significant impact in robotics.JSFarman (talk) 21:29, 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. Page is being improved upon by the OTRS requester, and there are no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bidlo[edit]

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

There is a request from WP:OTRS Ticket:2015121510003356 that this article be deleted. Could someone please assess the extent to which this article meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria? I have no position on whether this article should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In re: There is a request from WP:OTRS Ticket:2015121510003356 Dear Blue Raspberry and other respondents... When I emailed asking that an improved profile replace the chronically Pollock oriented one, I did not request that the Mike Bidlo page disappear. Please observe that I have succeeded in posting significant improvements on the page now... This will be further improved by a copyrighted photograph I am inthe process of getting approval to use and additional links and dates for Bidlo's works. !! Please remove the deletion header from the Bidlo Page !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.77.82 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Now suggesting speedy keep (see below). Based on an initial review of the sources already presented on the page, and of other sources readily visible from Google and HighBeam searches, it's evident that he's notable in the Wikipedia sense of passing WP:ARTIST, and is an important figure in the history of appropriation art. In addition to many art publications, his work has been repeatedly discussed in The New York Times (notably this 2010 article among many) and New York magazine (for example [3][4]), and in plenty of books [5]. A recent article in Artforum revisits a landmark 1999 issue of the same magazine that discussed the rise and fall of the early 1980s East Village art scene, with Bidlo (along with David Wojnarowicz) on the cover, and that identified Bidlo's 1984 "Not Andy Warhol's Factory" performance/exhibit at P.S. 1 as the "closing party for the moment at hand" [6]. The article itself appears to be written in a neutral, fact-centered manner, with no obvious controversial material either in the article or the editing history. We have been given no explanation for the OTRS request, and as things stand there's no apparent basis for this to be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided in the article (and by Arxiloxos) demonstrate passage of GNG and ARTIST. The article is neutrally written and I don't see any obvious bias. While it could be improved further, IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting a page (via OTRS or otherwise). Bluerasberry, what's the complaint in the ticket that would explain such a nomination? Primefac (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I should not speak for the person who wrote in and I do not have copyright permission to copy their text here. I did give them the link to this discussion if they wish to participate. Their email began with the request to delete the article or to change it. In my opinion, some of the changes they requested are not typical for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but in any case, the email contained a request for deletion. They went on to say they might offer a new version in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry it's very difficult to give a properly reasoned response to this deletion request without knowing the general reason for the original OTRS deletion request. I understand that you can't divulge specifics, nor the exact text of the email, but a general synopsis / summary of the OTRS request is required for this to be an informed discussion. Its sound suspisciously like "I think I could provide a better version" ("they might offer a new version in the future") which is just IDONTLIKEIT in different clothing. That's not how Wikipedia works. As far as I can see, there are no BLP issues, the sources stack up and without further information on the OTRS deletion request, it's a KEEP from me. We can't be expected to discuss these issues in an information vacuum. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus.man What I did was not the best way for anyone. I will manage these requests differently in the future and tell others what I learned. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yesterday I emailed Wikipedia suggesting that the bio be removed in order to replace it with a comprehensive profile... I did not intend that the profile not exist. I have added a bibliography and begun to update and improve the existing profile. I am getting permission to use a copyrighted image of Mike Bidlo rather than a reproduction of a "Not Pollock” painting, which seems in itself to be an improvement on a "Profile" page. L. Brandon Krall 15 December 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that no one is actually advocating deletion of this article, I suggest it be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SK#1. LBrandonKrall's improvement efforts are appreciated. The article may need some attention from interested and experienced editors to assist with citation format, converting external links in the body of the article to footnotes (see WP:ELPOINTS), increasing the use of inline citations, avoiding bare URL links to avoid WP:LINKROT, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computers In Personnel[edit]

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

Reason DaveMiann (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for deletion because this article is basically self promotion of a company that has contributed nothing of significance to the HR industry does nothing different from the 10,000s of other software companies out in the world who would not qualify for a Wikipedia page. I've tried to work with this company to really increase the relevance of this page - which has resulted in them removing my edits - because it dilutes the brand. Wikipedia is not a google ranking mechanism - which is all they are using it for. This page contains no value, there are many other pages that take about HR software and business , that are more relevant.

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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the guidelines at WP:NCORP. The article is unsourced, previously contained sources but the ones I find do not mention the company. Googling falls quickly into databases and first-party sources, nothing indicating notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, this does seem clearly promotional and of a non-notable company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article reads like a company flyer on history instead of an article. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems clear from the current article and my searches found nothing better considering notability and improvement at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cornel[edit]

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

I can see evidence that this individual was drafted in 2014 but not that he ever played a game. He is not listed on the 2015–16 Buffalo Sabres season roster and there is no information he was traded to a different team. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deleted a year ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG, and this remains the case. Coverage is mainly trivial and/or routine. Subject is only 19 and could become notable in future, but not yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elson Haas[edit]

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

This article is on a subject that does not meet GNG or BLP. The sources in the article are not reliable and do not cover the guy in depth. I did a Google search for additional sources but found only syndicated content that mention the guy's opinion on healthy eating, but none mention him in depth either. Delta13C (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any reliable source on the claims made about his notability. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article even suggests fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines and the best my searches found were only a few links here and there, nothing outstanding. Notifying DGG who asks to be notified of these subject AfDs as he has familiar insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. possibly speedy delete as hopelessly promotional. he's not notable under WP:PROF but there is a faint possibility he might be a notable author . But if som, the article will need starting over. The only practical o thing do do with this is to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 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 and redirect to Miss Earth Mauritius#Titleholders. Sandstein 11:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Moochooram[edit]

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

~~Not enough WP:RS. Google news search results are complete zero. The Avengers 13:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given her country has a pop of 1.2 million and a GDP of only US$13.551 billion, the claims in the article to an extensive modeling career are astonishing. The Miss Earth Mauritius article is of questionable notability too. It's really a very small business that has a 3 year history. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to The Avengers' nom, if Miss Earth Mauritius may not meet GNG an individual who participates in it definitely doesn't. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable BLP - Being crowned some stupid award doesn't grant you to an article!, Get rid of Miss Earth or whatever the hell it is too. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth Mauritius#Titleholders as a plausible and cheap redirect. Any discussion on the merits of the "parent article" should take place seperately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Bushranger. Nothing here for a separate article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 23 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. Going to be completely honest I can't read Chinese at all but neither can any closer here so I'm closing as Keep - I'm assuming the sources in the article all confirm notability & all that... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chu feng B.E.E[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Does not seem to meet our general notability guidelines and there is a lack of reliable sources. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

Userfy: Being a non-English product with no English releases makes it difficult to simply declare it non-notable. In expanded WP:BEFORE it does appear to be sourcable, so I'd suggest it be returned to its author for more work to bring it into line with WP:MOS and WP:N. It can be returned once or if notability is properly established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've found the Chinese version of this article at zh:雛蜂. With that I've been able to salvage the content and rewrite the article. I think 1 English + 1 Chinese + 1 Japanese independent reviews (all cited in article now) will add up to a pass for WP:GNG, although as a web-broadcast series its prominence its limited. Der yck C. 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, kudos to Deryck Chan for expanding this. Has significance as the first Chinese anime series to be aired in Japan, if the sources are to be believed. I consider Mydrivers.com to be reliable enough. sst✈^(discuss) 15:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Byrne[edit]

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

fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as although the 158-history is certainly noticeable, my searches found only some News coverage and nothing to suggest better independent notabiltiy. Had she been mentioned at another article, I would've suggested moving there but there's isn't. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is certainly notable within the world of finance; coverage outside of financial media is not as clear-cut, but for example her role in pushing the Women in Leadership index has gotten substantial attention. For what it's worth, there are profiles of her in American Banker (ranking her #3 on this year's list of "Most Powerful Women in Finance") [7] and Politico (calling her "one of the most accomplished and powerful women in the banking industry") [8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that to call someone notable on the basis of being the __th most notable woman in whatever is condescending and sexist and implies lower standards. The first woman to have entered a profession previously closed to them is of course notable historically but that's a different matter, because there we go by historical standards, which were in fact sexist. I recognize that there is still remanants of this is some fields today, which may provide a counterargument, but I still think it condescending. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single article in the Wall Street Journal isn't enough to meet WP:SECONDARY. Also, a "Vice-Chairman" title at an investment bank is a joke. It's what investment banks give you when they take away your management responsibilities and make you "emeritus". The only positive implication is that now women can break through the glass ceiling and THEN be superannuated gracefully. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:09, 22 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listenable Records[edit]

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

Unfortunately the PROD was removed by 78.26 so here we are for a full AfD and I confirm what I said with my PROD "Likely even speedy material if it wasn't for the current amount of bands but searches unsurprisingly found nothing but then again this seems like an independent obscure field and area.". My searches simply found nothing better to suggest this is a notable and otherwise considerably known record label and I've actually also nominated several of the listed bands for deletion (Pale Forest was speedied as A7 with hardly much content to begin with) as they seemed non-notable with no obvious improvement and then there are also some that have no article at all (red links).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - really? It's unfortunate to have a discussion? That's interesting. I think that a label that has been around for longer than a decade, and has signed more than 30 bands with wikipedia articles might deserve to be looked into a bit before being deleted by uncontested prod. Maybe it's not notable, this isn't my type of music, and I don't know anything (yet) about the label, but what's wrong with looking a bit deeper, and hopefully by several editors knowledgeable about the subject? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we need someone who is more familiar with search results in French. There are a ton of references but I am not going to copy and paste them all into Google Translate and then try to figure out which publications are realiable. In English, there are quite a few sources, not just band signings. If you search Google Books [9] you will find quite a few mentions in books on metal. Not sure how much coverage you would require. I understand that record labels are companies, but when you have one with so many signed bands and nothing other than mentions of signings, this could be a case for ignore all rules. Just my humble opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - searching google books and google news, this appears to be a MAJOR player in the European metal music scene. Not my type of music at all, but the fact there are more than 40 notable bands that have at one point signed to the label, and the broad geographic coverage their album releases have received indicates that this label is having significant impact on culture, and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 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 delete. But can be restored for reuse of the content in a broader article. Sandstein 09:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3059 (game)[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:GNG. Cited sources do not provide significant coverage and are mostly self-published (or considered unreliable by WP:VG/RS: Home of the Underdogs). GameBanshee has nothing better (another copy of the game's blurb) and I'm unable to find better sources, which may have to do with the game's title. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to see if there are more sources, but this might be a potential redirect to an article on phr00t, the developer that wrote this and 4 other games (3069, 3079, 3089, and 4089) , with the latter gaining some attention as it is a VR title. I don't think any of the individual games have specific notability but as a whole there may be notability for the developer and as such this can be a redirect to that. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Phr00t and expand. I don't see enough on 3059 in specific, but there's plenty of coverage for the sequels, though I'd say that the best common topic for the sequels is not any single release but its developer (per a video game reliable sources custom Google search) czar 15:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now or redirect once the Phroot article is started if notable and conceivable as there's simply not much here to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
expand and moveto an article about phroot or about the series in general. We should find sources for the series and other articles. The games are very historic and it would be a shame to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.186.152 (talk) 15:56, 3 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} 13:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically per Czar. The 3059 (game) topic is non-notable but its content may be reused in a new article. sst✈^(discuss) 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. There should be another article created per Czar's point above, but this article isn't what should be placed there-- instead a new article needs to be freshly created. Nomader (talk) 07:44, 22 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Azmi[edit]

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

Non-Notable person. Musa Talk 12:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Not notable, un useful article. --Shekhar 07:01, 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 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is biased The name of Rehan is also included in book published and can be published on demand by Books LLC see here [10]. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually checked the Books LLC article, you would have known that this "publisher" copies articles from Wikipedia and sells those as books. You should never use Books LLC as a source here. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now my point is clear. One can earn through WP deleted articles(+talks). But general people cannot receive info without cost. What a notability and reliable source is one discussing. I am afraid of partnership as well. Nannadeem (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allow me to break up my argument into the following:

Google Books: 7 hits, 6 of which are copies of Wikipedia content (=not a reliable source). That 1 other hit is his name in a credits list (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Google News: 5 hits, 4 of which mention someone else with the same name (=irrelevant sources). That other 1 hit is the poet Rehan Azmi mentioned in a list of attendees of a funeral (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Note about using Dawn as a source: this "newspaper" claims that Rehan Azmi is mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records as the 7th speediest writer of poetry. Record for being the 7TH, seriously? Looking at the wikipage history, this dubious "fact" was present since the beginning in 2009, while Dawn published its article in May 2012. Seems like they copied Wikipedia without actually checking Guinness (he really does not show up there when searching for "Rehan Azmi", you can check for yourself). In other words, I doubt that Dawn is a reliable newspaper.
Remaining sources (al-qayim.tv and shiamultimedia.com) are even more WP:QUESTIONABLE.

Total verdict: there are is not enough reliable information available for us to write a reliably sourced article, thus Rehan Azmi fails the general notability guideline and this article should be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suggest the nominator for withdrawal of his move of deletion the article. This reliable source endorses the subject's notability. Later any time, I will search more sources to add. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is no need to have an article on every person named by DAWN or The Express Tribune.--Musa^Talk ☻ 19:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal view, not the Wikipedia guidelines, does not work here. We have to follow the rules; there are not any policies that restrict such intentions that you suggest. Read the policies before nominating for deletion.Justice007 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say he is a non notable person. You need to do your homework. These sources are not enough. Can you find more? and also read WP:Ignore all rules.--Musa^Talk ☻ 00:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 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} 13:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HyperGaruda makes a convincing case of non-notability. I've cleaned up the article and its few sources are weak. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic theory about quality variation in Dawn

@GorgeCustersSabre: I was also quite surprised that there was such low quality content in one of the oldest English-language newspapers of Pakistan. But I think I have a theory about that. Recently I've been cleaning up Mai Safoora, which referred to only 1 source: DAWN. I found it somewhat awkward that the news article started with what seems to be an advert and the rest of the text did not seem to be written by a professional journalist. Then I checked the author: "From the newspaper", the same "author" who published the article I had linked earlier. After browsing through "From the newspaper"'s articles, it occurred to me that this specific "author" is probably where readers' letters are sent to and indeed many of its articles are signed at the bottom by people who clearly are no journalists, like here. In all, I would say that Dawn's articles are only reliable sources if they have been published by non-random authors, such as this article by Atika Rehman & Ali Akbar and this one by the "The Newspaper's Staff Reporter". We should definitely be careful with articles published by "From the newspaper". - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HyperGaruda. That's very interesting. I'll take a look through a sample of Dawn articles. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best for now as none of this solidly suggests a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Conflict of interest Please see the edit summary of the page in the current week. Can one vote for deletion same day after copy-edit/clean-up? I think he must first undo all his editing before voting for the deletion. I see no familiarity with the subject who are voting for deletion. Nannadeem (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Appears to have been a coatrack too, until a recent nuking by Georgecuster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking at the article as it now stands (thankyou User:GorgeCustersSabre for cleaning it up), subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. I know notability does not rely on the article's content but if any editors can find, for example, reliably sourced reviews of his books that would be very helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe (Get Loose Crew song)[edit]

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

These two songs, much a like the MC Shadow songs I listed yesterday, do not qualify for their own article. The #5 chart position on "Wannabe" is at an unrecognized chart per WP:CHART. The other song has no claim for notability at all. The sparse information contained in these two articles can easily be written into the album which they are on (Get Loose Crew). rayukk | talk 18:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. rayukk | talk 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. rayukk | talk 18:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive claim of notability under WP:NSONGS, apart from charting on a non-notable chart that doesn't pass Wikipedia:Record charts. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 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 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These songs do have Historical significance in Canadian Music and relevancy. The CHEER Music Pool Chart was reporting at a time when (which has link to verify its existence) this genre of music was being suppressed. It was a pioneer chart reporting rap/urban music in Canada in its infancy. The artists on the chart that surround MC Shadow are undisputable international music & entertainment icons. They are respected and notable pioneers in the US created music form. The fact that this Canadian artist in his teens was ranked alongside these artists that were already established is remarkable and 'encyclopeic' in spirit and in content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschoolmc (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Get Loose Crew Song is also, significant to the Canadian Music Genre and the genre as the artists historic significance within Canada and Globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschoolmc (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Maestro Fresh Wes, Dream Warriors, MCJ and Cool G and Devon, who all got onto actual wikinotable IFPI-certified charts, would be fascinated to hear that this "CHEER Music Pool Chart" (a private service of a membership organization for club DJs, not certified by any chart licensing agency or covered by any reliable sources besides itself) was the only chart a Canadian hip hop song could possibly have appeared on in that era. And what's "encyclopedic in spirit and in content" is reliable source coverage, of which exactly none has been shown here, not opinion-based assertions of how "remarkable" you personally think any unsourced accomplishment may have been. And if you think I'm being dismissive of the genre, you might want to check the edit history on Canadian hip hop to see who originally created it in the first place, and has been the single most frequent editor of it since. I'm fully aware of the barriers to mainstream attention that have often plagued Canadian hip hop, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to rectify that imbalance ourselves, if we have to lean on unreliable sources, assertions of private personal knowledge whose accuracy we have no way of verifying because they aren't sourced at all, and/or non-notable record charts to do it. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear evidence of notability that obviously meets the relevant guidelines. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 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} 13:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale by Bearcat. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:29, 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 by Liz under A10.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by The Godfather[edit]

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

Pointless complication. All is a copy 'n' paste of the long-established article, The Godfather. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to what exists at The Godfather. Seems like a copy-and-paste job, especially problematic with no attribution of original source. In addition, the number of accolades related to The Godfather does not warrant a sub-article. Nowadays, the biggest award contenders probably get enough recognition to warrant a sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:07, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meenchantha[edit]

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

unsourced article about a small road juntion. No indication of WP:notability noq (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) 15:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as I've noticed this author has submitted several articles especially about local interests but I'm simply not seeing much of a better article for this one. SwisterTwister talk

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Uno[edit]

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

Too soon article. The Avengers 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, none of this currently suggests satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article by SPA with COI. Subject doesn't meet notability criteria at this time. Citobun (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 22 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. WP:SK1: the nominator does not advance an argument for deletion, instead proposing merger, and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion. The proper venue for proposing a merger is the target article's talk page using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing South Indian films[edit]

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

Suggest merger to List of highest-grossing Indian films. South Indian films are two separate language films (Telugu and Tamil) films so this is just a portion of the larger Indian films industry. See the original lengthy discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films/Archive_1#Merge_discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Maybe merger isn't the right word as there's nothing to merge since the contents are already at the highest-grossing Indian films. It's delete and redirect I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect perhaps as there's currently not much to suggest a larger separate article and this current content can go together with the other article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, list of redirects to the highest Indian films already includes Highest grossing South Indian movies, 100 crore grossing movies in south india and others that were all manually merged into the main Indian films article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Why is merger being proposed through AfD channel? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per Dharmadhyaksha, AfD is not needed to suggest a merge. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:32, 21 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 Nomination withdrawn Optimist on the run (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084[edit]

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

I don't really see why this locomotive deserves a separate article. I feel this content would be better merged into the main article on its class and then sourced. Blythwood (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - OK, fair enough. Thanks for the comments. Blythwood (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep practice so far has been that preserved locos either on display or in working order during preservation have been seen as notable. The article does need sourcing, but that shouldn't be too hard.

We don't have an article to merge this to. Preserved BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 might do it, but we don't have such an article. I would see it as WP:undue to use the article on the class working under BR as a preservation list. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that this article was only created yesterday. Authors should be given some chance to work on things before they're judged. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article desperately needs referencing, but a lack of references is not a reason for an article (aside from a WP:BLP, which this is not) to be deleted. It is WP:CONSENSUS that preserved locomotives are notable. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, that the nominator is expected to have checked to see if problems that could lead to deletion can be fixed, that recommending merger instead of deletion as the nominator is a Speedy Keep criterion, and that nominating an article for deletion within 12 hours of its creation is generally poor form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has grown to have more text about the individual article than would be appropriate for an article about the class. Preserved locomotives are usually considered notable enough for inclusion. It still needs references to independent reliable sources, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Slambo (Speak) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WikiProject Trains and WikiProject UK Railways with notes on their respective talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 16:29, 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 speedy delete. Per U5 - this was clearly intended to be someone's personal notes that were placed in articlespace instead of userspace by mistake. Either way this is indeed "blatantly misusing Wikipedia as a webhost", so per WP:IAR U5 gets applied in articlespace. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

40181252 Top Gun - Critical Reflection[edit]

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

This is either a hoax or it's been placed on the mainspace by mistake. Blythwood (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like an error.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:U5. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:31, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target intercom incident[edit]

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

I don't feel this is notable: a short incident that got a bit of news coverage but hardly worth an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, well done for providing a range of references. Blythwood (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind elaborating on why you think this article doesn't meet WP:GNG? There are many sources cited that all significantly and independently cover the topic (except for maybe the first one). Is it because you think the sources are unreliable? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 09:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to meet notability to me as a one-off, isolated event. There was a case some years back when a cinema accidentally played the trailer to Nymphomaniac to kids attending a Disney film. Would that be notable enough to get its own article? I've looked at the sources and most of them seem to be just aggregation with no additional reporting, which makes me inclined to support deletion. Blythwood (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a lurid and unusual event this got quite a bit of news coverage. However "WP is not news." No lasting importance. Borock (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 23:35, 21 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Motschmann[edit]

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

Nominating for AfD after PROD was removed by Megalibrarygirl including after it was endorsed by Plutonium27. I still echo and confirm my original PROD here and I should also note this article was actually deleted twice in 2005 at German Wiki apparently at the exact time this English Wiki article was started (first time at both De. and En. Wikis were December 5, 2005), so that also questions this article. If this can actually be kept and better improved, anyone should feel welcome as this looks like a classic 2005-2007 Wiki article, but all signs are suggesting there's no considerable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deprodded because no improvement over time is not a reason to delete. I stand by that, SwisterTwister. I believe Wikipedia is better served by improving and sourcing more articles rather than deleting--unless there is no other recourse. In my participation in AfD, I have seen several articles marked by various editors as "no room for improvement" or "no sources found" which later went on to be significantly sourced by other editors and saved from the deletion process. Because of this, I am skeptical of the claim that there is no room for improvement and I welcome the article in the AfD process instead of speedy delete. I hope that this AfD will bring more eyes to the article which needs someone who is fluent in German. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed unsourced material and added some references. I'm not fluent in German though, so I'm not sure of her notability still. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I welcome the article in the AfD process instead of speedy delete." This article was nominated for WP:Proposed deletion not WP:Speedy deletion. There is a marked difference between the two. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Plutonium27 for not using the right terminology--I think you know what I meant, though. I felt that this article would be better served by more eyes than just silently deleting through the "prod" process, that's all. I was hoping that someone might know whether any of the sources I found were notable or not. Seems like there aren't, but I'm glad it had others looking at it to be sure. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - much better after Megalibrarygirl's work, but I'm not seeing the notability. News produced a single hit, which was a short paragraph about her; Newspapers returned zip; Scholar returned 3 hits, all with zero citations; Books only had links to two of her works; and Highbeam also had zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that she passes the general notability guidelines for poets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorsed the proposed deletion. The subject is not notable and these efforts to show otherwise seem to have been more about making a point than applying objective policy. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability. While I will agree with Megalibrarygirl that "Wikipedia is better served by improving and sourcing more articles rather than deleting", this article appears to fail WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:39, 22 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. WP:SNOW. The nominator and sole delete !vote don't provide any rationale beyond "fails WP:GNG", though the keep votes show that the subject clearly meets relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vaughan (landscape architect)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very notable in Vancouver, being a Vancouver native myself, his name consistantly appears in the public. Ueutyi (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomainator. 209.53.181.40 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and I don't hand those out often. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST as there are multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources about him and his body of work online, in the news, in books, and in scholarly works. He has been called a "visionary", "key", "prominent", "internationally acclaimed", " renowned", "award-winning", etc., and none of this is because of the online propagation of his own self-promotion as is often the case with non-notable individuals. I have added to the article to reflect some of this notability. As an aside, this has been prodded twice and now is up for a 2nd AfD. Did no one do WP:BEFORE or is there some conflict with the hockey community of which we need to be aware? This seems to be put up for deletion for no reason other than WP:NOTMYTOPICAREA but maybe I'm not assuming good faith here. I'd like to challenge the nominator and the unregistered user to provide a more nuanced argument as to why this article should be deleted, because I'm just not seeing it, it's not even a case of being marginally notable. Valfontis (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that his name is sometimes misspelled "Vaughn"; I've added an additional search box. Valfontis (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wanted to note that the article has kept in a previous discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. It's also linked above. Valfontis (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Valfontis (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial coverage from several independent sources. MB298 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It passes GNG easily, with multiple independent sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLAR - He has received an honorary Doctoral degree in Law from a large university. Specific criteria notes of WP:SCHOLAR: "...significant academic awards and honors may include... ...,honorary degree,...". He is a member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts. Sufficient reliable neutral sources to meet general notability guidelines. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:11, 21 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excela Health[edit]

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

I speedied this as spam, and tagged as such for the last five years. That decision has been challenged by another admin on the basis of the longevity of the article and the fact that it may be notable, so I'm bringing it here, although IMHO it needs NPOV rewriting from scratch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the subject probably meets WP:CORP. I will try and add some sources to show this in the next few days. The article is promotional in places but does not rise to WP:G11 which is the criterion it was speedily deleted. I have no objection to reducing the article to a stub to appease concerns over the writing style. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up a bit and added some references. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this article needs to be rewritten. However, taking out valid HealthGrades data and the references supporting the data seems to me counterproductive. Bill Pollard (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a little too ruthless, but the detail seemed a bit excessive. We are never going to be able to provide as much reliable information as HealthGrades, and keeping it up-to-date is a challenge, so why try? A summary might be appropriate though. Feel free to add back whatever you feel is right, and sorry for undoing your work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did try to summarize the HealthGrades data, as there is probably 10 times more than I used. Anyway, we have similar problems keeping many articles updated. I really think if this article is deleted, the three individual hospitals need their own articles and I sort of think this should be done anyway. There is material about the individual hospitals online, while not so much about the parent company. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to stop you creating those articles, and leaving this one as a stub. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on them tomorrow. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wpollard and SwisterTwister who have been involved in the article recently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can actually be improved as my searches mostly found local passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: yes the mentions are local but fairly significant and not just "passing mentions". What do you think now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice the article has some better sources now but it almost still looks the same and I'm simply not gathering the solid notability. To be honest, I would've even likely still PRODed this if I had encountered it because the article could look better. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article does have gaps that I am sure can be fixed. However, the three hospitals within the article are notable. I did some work a while back concerning the HealthGrades coverage for the three hospitals. Hospitals are notable, meaning this article through their coverage is notable. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As promised I have started the process to move the hospitals run by Excela Health to independent articles. I started with Frick Hospital. Bill Pollard (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and do not make articles on the hospitals,which are not notable, and which will almost certainly be delted. What would make more sense is to start a NPOV article on the system, without the puffery, mentioning the hospitals. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals are by Wikipedia's definition notable. Do not threaten to delete valid articles. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make such a claim, unless you can direct me to the policy? There are some guidelines however at WP:NHOSPITALS. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all three hospitals and can say they all meet WP:NHOSPITALS criteria well enough to qualify. HealthGrades itself has abundant material online on all three. In fact, I have found it unusual for hospitals to not have stand-alone articles. I think Excela Health is itself notable, although the article in question is poorly written. In the meantime I will continue working on articles on the three hospitals. I have put some info into the article Frick Hospital and I can find much more stuff on it without tons of effort. In fact, tomorrow I will do just that. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished the article Latrobe Hospital, finding four valid independent references. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would immensely appreciate it if this were relisted one last and third time, with hopes to have better attention here. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 24 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} 14:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Whilst WP:ARTICLEAGE is utterly irrelevant, Google returns around 200-300 hits from mainly local newspapers in Pittsburgh [11]. Ideally, one should look into these hits more closely, but just based on sheer number of independent coverage I'd be somehow inclined to keeping the article. kashmiri ^TALK 02:29, 25 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Critics Circle[edit]

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

I came across this group via the related AfD for one of their awards.

I noted that the PCC was very recently founded (September 2014) and a search didn't bring up anything that would show that it would pass notability guidelines at this point in time. The coverage is predominantly through blogs and similar SPS. The AZ Central hosted their ballots, but a look at the article shows that it was written by one of their members, which makes it a primary source. I do see that the awards got mentioned here, but I don't know that Awards Daily would be a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. I just don't know that this would really be enough to show that this relatively new organization is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following related awards pages:

Phoenix Critics Circle Awards 2014

Phoenix Critics Circle Awards 2015

Phoenix Critics Circle Award for Best Director

I think that it's just WP:TOOSOON for this organization to have an article since the coverage as a whole is so insanely light. I have no problem with the article getting recreated in the future when the coverage becomes much heavier, but I will caution that it's very difficult for organizations as a whole to pass GNG on Wikipedia because WP:CORP (which also encompasses organizations both big and small) has one of the higher bars set as far as notability goes on here. I will note that there's also a template (Template:Phoenix Critics Circle Awards) that will need to be speedied or MfD'd when/if these articles are deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, though, if Nauriya wants to userfy any of this if the pages do get deleted, I have zero problem with that. It might be a long while before PCC passes guidelines since it can take years for film organizations to really become established, but there's no reason why you can't do this - I've held on to userpages for a while myself on occasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also WT:FILM#Awards season for a related discussion at WikiProject Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WikiProject:Film went through a long cleansing of countless trivial regional critics groups. Like the deleted North Carolina Film Critics Association and Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, this is a non-notable local group that exists primarily as an awards-mill. Please see this discussion, which discusses, among other things, how the Phoenix Film Critics Society already was deleted.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as none of the current article suggests even a minimally better notable article. Notifying local user Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would love to vote keep on this one, but simply not enough out there to show that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Some coverage on the internet but on sites like Examiner, Flickreel, etc. Awards.com appears to be little more than a fan blog.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 22 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} 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donnell Turner[edit]

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

trivial roles as actor ; only one-non-notable film as director. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to suggest satisfying both general notability and actors notability, several works: yes, but anything for a considerably better article? Not yet. Lastly, draft and userfy only if needed as I'm not seeing any obvious signs of a better future article. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Contract roles on soap operas are not notable enough? Being a stand-in is not notable? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Majority of actor's sources come from casting on General Hospital, a role he's been in for less than one-month. Much like Swister Twister, his article fails to meet the GNG and notability for an actor/BLP article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I occasionally watch the show, and yet I have no idea who his character is. I can't even find the character on the GH wikia. JDDJS (talk) 04:24, 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. Sandstein 09:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Statistics[edit]

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

Contested prod, but the reasons given for the removal of the prod (see the talk page of the article) aren't convincing to me.

These statistics don't seem to have any notability and aren't needed to understand the main page. Instead of having them placed on a separate page, they could and should simply have been removed. (Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either under WP:BLP, but is not in itself a reason for deletion). Fram (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and borderline incomprehensible. Aspirex (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I was expecting to see some discussion about how many ACs were awarded for specific types of endeavour (philanthropy, business, military etc), but I can't even work out what this article is about. Although not quite WP:GIBBERISH, it is pretty much incomprehensible to a general audience. I'd suggest WP:IMPROVEing the article, but I'm not even sure what you'd work towards. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Statistics

Proposed deletion/dated |concern = These statistics don't seem to have any notability and aren't needed to understand the main page. (Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either). |timestamp = 20151208102944

Several issues:

1) The top of the page says:

This page is a continuation of List of Companions of the Order of Australia

(For technical reasons, these sections have been placed on a separate page.) Clarification: because that page is already quite big.

This information could be returned to the relevant section of the page from which they have been separated, but that page is already quite big, (which is why they were split off into a separate page).

2) Statistics are facts about facts. I'm not sure what notability has to do with it. I believe that there is no doubt that the facts (i.e. the Companions of the Order of Australia), are notable.

3) "aren't needed".

a) This is your opinion - it is NOT a fact - and you do not explain why.

b) Absolutely NONE of Wikipedia is "needed" - the world managed perfectly well before Wikipedia existed - why just pick on this page?

4) "(Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either)."

Why not? This is public information published on official government websites for which references have been provided.

Again, this is your opinion - it is NOT a fact - and you do not explain why.

49.199.172.201 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't care what the final decision is, provided that it is based on fact, (rather than opinion).

However, if the decision is simply based on the above "WP:I just don't like it" statements, I will be most disappointed with the deletion process. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions - Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Contested prod, but the reasons given for the removal of the prod (see the talk page of the article) aren't convincing to me. Well, as I implied on the talk page, the original reasons "aren't convincing to me", either, but at least I stated why.
- Could someone please explain what is incomprehensible?
- How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable - This is an opinion, not a fact.
- but I can't even work out what this article is about - Really? (I think the title of the article makes it clearly obvious what it is about, so I don't understand how or why you can't work it out.)
- Responses
  - What about my reasoning above constitutes an "I don't like it" argument? I have argued that this content fork does not present a clear rationale for existing separate from the main article, and is presented in a WP:TECHNICAL or confusing manner making it difficult for a general audience to understand. "Don't know why this needs to exist" is not "I don't like it". I see from the edit history that you (User:Pdfpdf) created the page in the first place; can you explain what you mean by "technical reasons" necessitating the new page? I was unable to find any discussion about this on the talk pages. I can certainly see the rationale for having a subheading for yearly summaries, but disagree that this requires an entirely new page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the bit I found "incomprehensible" was the fact that it is not apparent what either the list headings or the numbers within refer to. I assume, having read through the rest of the page and the parent page, that it refers to the number of ACs awarded in that year, under the General (G), Military (M) or Honorary (H) categories, but at first glance the reader does not have sufficient information to work out what is being presented. The "It's an honour" section is still confusing (and contains OR in that it explicitly contradicts the primary reference). A more thorough introduction to each section might help with the confusion, but my criticism above would still stand.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable - This is an opinion, not a fact." Allright, then prove to us that it is notable, that reliable independent sources have given significant attention to these statistics. Not to the awards themselves, these are notable of course, but specifically to these statistics. Deletion reason: not notable, not "I don't like it". Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems surplus to the List of Companions of the Order of Australia article, which is large but not unmanageably so Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As stated, I created this page because it seemed to me that the List of Companions of the Order of Australia page was large, and I feared that adding this information to that page would make that page unmanageably large. It appears to me that neither Yeti Hunter nor Nick-D have that fear. Good. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's my view Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 21 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. In most cases with only one !vote I'd relist, but given the detailed analysis conducted by Tokyogirl79 and the fact the parent organisation's article has been deleted this is enough to tip into a delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Critics Circle Award for Best International Film[edit]

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

no evidence for notability of this award. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be worth asking if the Phoenix Critics Circle itself would warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've opened an AfD for the PCC itself and the other award pages here. To sum things up as a whole about the organization, while looking for sources I found that there really wasn't any coverage about the PCC that wasn't primary, self-published, or in a location that Wikipedia would consider to be notable. Sometimes an award can gain coverage by reliable sources reporting on the results, but I didn't see where anyone had really covered these awards at all, not even to list that they were handed out. I think that part of this is because the organization is fairly new, as it was founded in September 2014, making it about a little over a year old. So far no one has really commented on them or the awards anywhere. The only halfway decent coverage came from a ballot mention in AZ Central by a group member (making it primary) and a listing of results by Filmreel, which I'm not entirely sure would be considered a RS by Wikipedia. Even if Filmreel was usable, they're the only ones that are actually reporting the results and it wouldn't be enough by itself to show notability. It's incredibly difficult for organizations to pass GNG on Wikipedia because the bar for notability is much higher, so I think that it's at best WP:TOOSOON for the group or any of its awards to have articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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 redirect to 12 and Holding. Never close on one !vote but seems to make sense to just redirect so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Donovan (actor)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 12 and Holding honestly as I would've also said keep because of the Young Artist Award but, frankly, looking at his list of works shows nothing else to suggest a better solidly independently notable article aside from that one best known work. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Prison[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable video game. A search for sources reveals only unreliable posts that discuss its IndieGogo campaign, as well as a Steam Greenlight. No reviews, no reliable coverage about development; the game itself doesn't appear to have been released yet. Note that the article's creator appears to be none other than the game's developer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this game hasn't released yet and hasn't received any true coverage in independent and reliable sources. As such, it's just WP:TOOSOON for this game to have an article at this point in time. When it releases and gains some coverage via reviews or other attention from WP:RS, it can be re-created - although I'd recommend that this go through WP:AfC first given that there does appear to be a WP:COI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly even much to suggest satisfying video games notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Tokyogirl. Zero hits in WP:VG's reliable source custom search. -- ferret (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Citobun (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable enough to have its own page, and it fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:31, 20 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} 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jacoby (composer)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable composer. Can't find any independent sources, reliable or otherwise. PRODded by @McGeddon as "Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources"; PROD removed by an IP with the rather bizarre explanation that it's "too early in career for secondary sources". Kolbasz (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly much to suggest a better article for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A standard google search gives a lot of relevant results which I'm looking through to. try and find reliable sources.217.43.20.238 (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't find any reliable sources87.112.91.203 (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:COMPOSER. I couldn't locate and secondary reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. It also appears that this composer fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:COMPOSER as well. Even if this person did manage to skid past those guidelines, WP:GNG is where the trail ends. There must be significant coverage in secondary reliable sources in order to establish notability of a subject, and I'm just not finding any. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Vetter Huang[edit]

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

May not meet the academic notability guidelines. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 04:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best perhaps as my searches found links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but none of seems to suggest outstanding better notability and improvement. Notifying DGG for academics insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant standard here is really MUSIC not PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm surprised because her level of appointment and activity usually results in enough general coverage to support a keep vote but I'm unable to see it here. Each of the chamber groups is just below the notability bar that one would expect coverage of the individual members. So there's no pass on GNG or music. The articles are not of high enough number and the academic position not senior enough to consider a WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:55, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

County roads in Anoka County, Minnesota[edit]

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

Somewhat useless list of roads in a single county, the only justification is that other articles of a similar kind exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), however I cannot see any source that confers any particular notability on this subject, nor can I see any evidence that the individual roads are notable. I'd consider withdrawing this if sources can be found that disprove either of these two assertions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Salimfadhley (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, what he said. Not notable, no possibility of notability, not a valid article. — Smuckola (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, everybody is baselessly stating that it's notable, but I'd really appreciate a policy-based explanation why an article like this is WP:N. I don't understand why any of the content is notable, and if it is, then it must satisfy WP:N in order to get its own article at all. I don't mean to be thick or controversial, and I appreciate the favor. It seems that they all need to be in 'list' class and renamed to "List of...". I have seen lots of boring and untenable lists, but they're all of notable things which each have (or are expected to have) their own articles, such as video games, movies, and artists. Any other list item is removed. These articles are entirely of categorically non-notable list items and other content. It's almost like this is a list of stuff *because* it's non-notable, so we had to trump it up by creating a list of it. WP:NOTDIR Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page might answer a few of your questions. In essence, it's true that this is a list because the individual entries do not warrant their own articles. But usually the system as a whole can be seen as notable, and part of the clean-up others are mentioning would hopefully be to add a lead section about the system. Also, NOTDIR doesn't really seem to be applicable based on the 7 examples given there. WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which includes gazetteer functions. "Pepper" @ 06:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of county roads are notable enough, as long as the routes don't get individual articles. However, that list needs serious cleanup. Dough4872 04:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and a general application of WP:USRD's Rockland County Scenario. Publications such as this one are usually out there for county road systems as a whole. It actually says a fair amount about the county road system (but not individual roads), which is perhaps why the article is better off as a list. "Pepper" @ 05:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This use of RCS is fine to assemble this list of county routes in the standard manner. Obviously it needs improvement. Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) 15:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County road lists like this are encyclopedic material, and consistent with Wikipedia's gazeteer function. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keeo - as mentioned above, this is the standard way in which Wikipedia presents articles on county road systems; remember that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's a gazetteer. The list may need cleanup but that is not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, all those !voting keep are citing USRD essays. If someone can establish some sort of notability then I'll reconsider my position. Worst case scenario, at least merge all this roadcruft into a single list article per state and try to turn them into something useful (not personally convinced on that one - but could be worth a shot), but first preference is certainly delete. Jeni ^(talk) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's only an essay" is an argument to avoid. These can not be merged into "a single list article per state", as such a list would be ridiculously huge - and needing to be split, right back to the by-county level. Wikipedia is a gazetteer and as such road networks are notable and articles on them are appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted two more essay's there! Personal opinion, that's all those are. Also, can you show me specifically where it says "Wikipedia is a gazetteer" please? The 5P link you gave gives this quote "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - which is very different to "Wikiepedia is a gazetteer". Jeni ^(talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're so eager to dismiss established WP:CONSENSUS solely because of the manner in which it is described. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Reformat - The article looks too much like an essay, despite the fact that it's just a list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:56, 19 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} 00:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestar Mould[edit]

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

Only a little more than 5,000 Google hits, and no Google news hits besides the company website. Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nt only are they not notable, nut the contents of the article are highly promotional about their concepts ang guiding prinivples. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better and this has not improved since starting a month ago, emphasizing also the fact I found nothing at all to suggest a better article here. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 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 speedily deleted by User:Liz under criterion G6. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deb (middle name)[edit]

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

While "surname" and "given name" are things we allow list articles like this to be created for, in reality what we normally want those to be, if at all possible, is actual articles about the names rather than just lists of people who happen to have them. But we don't have any established practice of also maintaining "middle name" articles — very nearly any "middle name" that anybody on earth could possibly be given is just a "given name" or a "surname" shifted to the middle position, rather than belonging to any class of names that's designated exclusively for "middle name" use. The dead giveaway is that there's no Category:Middle names for this to be filed in — and having scanned both Category:Given names and Category:Surnames, I can't find any evidence of any other page that's dabbed as "(middle name)" either. And at any rate, this "middle name" list is a list of one person — so it wouldn't be a useful list to maintain even if "middle name" articles were a thing Wikipedia did. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have never seen a middle name before. Also middle names are just like first names hence in most cases (given name) should include middle name as well. Ueutyi (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 04:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G6 —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Readers don't normally search by middle name. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 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 merge to Martin O'Malley. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O'Malley's March[edit]

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

Non-notable unsigned band RF23 (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge should be merged into Martin O'Malley as he is quite notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as mentioned as this seems best known connected through him. SwisterTwister talk 08:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Notability is through Martin O'Malley and not independent to the band. Also, the tone of the individual member biographies could be interpreted as advertisement (WP:NOTADVERTISING) and at very least fails the guidelines of WP:TONE. Abovethestorm (talk) 04:11, 20 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} 00:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Brice[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable biography. Her roles are minor (small parts in 3 episodes of one show...one episode in another.) The movie she is the lead in is not a notable movie. She does not appear to be receiving significant coverage via reliable sources. There are significant POV issues as well; it's clear from the history that this has been written by family members of the subject so if the article is kept, major rewriting is needed. only (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to suggest satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is being written by her own mother/father, obvious pov issues CatcherStorm ^talk 09:21, 20 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayad Sadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's debatable whether he actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL, but regardless he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erand Rica (3rd nomination), amongst others. Giant Snowman 21:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a handful off appearances at best a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see above for numerous recent examples. Fenix down (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Giant and Fenix Spiderone 20:03, 22 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} 12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino Natoli (insurance man)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of notability for this person other than the medal in 1917, which was routinely given to minor civil servants and the like. There are several other people called Antonino Natoli, but I found no coverage, in-depth or not, of this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No sources of notability indicated.--Yopie (talk) 19:03, 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) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to currently suggest a better notable article and it's worth noting the Italian Wiki page was apparently also deleted twice. SwisterTwister talk 08:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was a monk, not the insurance man; the second one was just a redirect. --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 22:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the Italian version of this article was deleted at least once I don't see there a case for keeping an English WP version . LibStar (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. BMK (talk) 00:49, 20 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. Essentially a copy of his amazon listing as given in worldcat [12]--the actual link here is blocked. . DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Hare[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable author with only two recent books and zero mentions in the Google News archives. The article was likely written by Mr. Hare himself or another member of his family, given that the user account's other edits all relate to Nicholas Hare Architects, owned by Bruno Hare's father. The subject's notability was questioned in 2014 but there hasn't been any further discussion since then. Isomorphic (talk) 20:57, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better than a few passing mentions. Notifying Tokyogirl79, DGG and LaMona who frequently participate at authors AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of Rehearsal in the Bleak Midwinter[edit]

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

The 15-minute film does not (yet) seem to meet WP:NFILM, unfortunately. I can find zero coverage in reliable sources nor has it received the sort of honours or awards that would allow it meet "Other evidence of notability." I also tried searching for the filmmaker's name, perhaps because the film title would be different in non-English markets -- not much luck. I should point out that this film does have an article on Italian Wikipedia, also without reliable sources, as best I understand. I'd be happy to withdraw this if I'm mistaken; short doc films deserve more attention. There is a possibility that the article creator is the filmmaker, judging by the username and WikiCommons image, but of course that in itself would be no reason to delete an otherwise notable article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not meet WP:NFILM, and insufficient coverage from a web search for this to meet WP:GNG (this is a 2014 production). sst✈^(discuss) 16:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Adams (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. He appeared in a few notable movies and a lot of TV shows, but not in major roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Nexus[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was planning on getting around to nominate this for deletion myself so that's my vote. GamerPro64 18:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed at best as my searches clearly found signs of better coverage for a better notable article. Notifying tagger Rubbish computer in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mārcis Zembergs[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY; his only action, according to hockeydb, was in the low-level British league. The article creator, created a small blizzard of such articles back in 2013, and that list might be reviewed for other NN articles. Ravenswing 05:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he doesn't meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vesuvius Records UK[edit]

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

PROD contested post deletion. Original PROD reason was: "My searches found no better coverage to suggest better notability and improvement." by SwisterTwister. It does not seem to meet the WP:GNG and there is a lack of available WP:RS. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I contested the PROD deletion as I feel the notability of this label is not best determined by the usual means - the label was actually just called "Vesuvius" and was presumably listed here as "Vesuvius Records UK" in order to avoid confusion with Vesuvius Records. As can be seen here - http://www.discogs.com/label/45687-Vesuvius - they released records by Ganger (band), Jad Fair, The Yummy Fur, Lungleg and The Make-up. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this survives deletion (right now nobody seems to have an opinion) I would like to rename it to Vesuvius (UK Record Label) - I think the sourcing is actually not bad, considering how difficult it is to source music press from the 1990s when so little of it is online. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:51, 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 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber modification[edit]

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

This appears to have major problems. It looks like a copyright text dump (random section number and Hill 2006 ref) but I can't find the source. The "refs" are either meaningless or primary sources undoubtedly associated with the obviously COI creator.

Seems to fail notability and WP:OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear to be copied from elsewhere and contains a lot of WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, a COI is very possible. However the refs are not just random noise; ref (4) is valid, as is ref (5) (included on Adamopoulos's About page), which also shows that Adamopoulos is an academic (at Linnaeus University). The SPA who created the article does not share the name of any of the cited authors, by the way. A quick search shows that Krzysik 1993 is a real paper also, and retrieves books on the subject. The same goes for Takatani 2000 and Laine 2002. The topic is therefore apparently notable, and while the article needs cleanup, AfD is probably not the right forum for that purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.V. Pooja[edit]

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

Not notable playback singer in Hindi and Tamil movies. Large part of the page had been added by the subject herself from the blogpage that is listed as her website (removed as copyvio). The references consist of of sources that do not pass WP:RS and the article has a largely promotional slant. Karst (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:52, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Bartolo[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best that I am finding is this page's statement that Jose Bartolo is one of its manufacturer's two key brands of cigar. Not enough for WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WP:V does not require articles to have sources, it requires article content to be verifiable, and this is not content that can be verified without sources in the article. Articles with no sources, with content that needs sources, cannot be salvaged without a 100% rewrite. No need to consider notability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 23 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathman Senathirajah[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. The citations include a link to Goodreads.com, links to photos of him being given awards for selling lots of things, and one article in a Malaysian newspaper covering his book. Subject is a MLM businessman. Delta13C (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly even generally notable and I personally would've PRODded. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:52, 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 17:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weiss/Manfredi[edit]

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

I had actually speedied this (but it was removed by Brianhe) as my searches simply found nothing better than some passing mentions from business publications, hardly much for obvious better notability and improvement. Notifying past tagger Diannaa in case she has any comments and I'm sure Brianhe is watching anyway so I won't notify him. SwisterTwister talk 08:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:10, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 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 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references seem sufficient to me. – Brianhe (talk) 08:55, 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 redirect to Dissolution (chemistry)#Rate of dissolution. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of solution[edit]

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

This topic is already covered in Dissolution (chemistry)#Rate of dissolution. In addition to that, I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources with enough information about the topic. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason this can not be deleted by speedy A10, duplicate, is that it is not a recent duplicate -- it dates from 2007. Incredible. More exactly, I would like to think this is incredible. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dissolution (chemistry)#Rate of dissolution - it seems (from Google search) a normal phrase. Christian75 (talk) 17:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Technologies Group[edit]

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

Promotional article. Company fails notability. Absolutely no info from trusted or notable sources, all google results are general ones relating to it being a registered British company and absolutely nothing else. Rayman60 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not see any notability as per WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as although its age and history would've certainly guaranteed a notable and acceptable article, my searches found nothing better than coverage including like what's currently listed, at News and browsers. Absolutely nothing to suggest a currently better article. Notifying past users DGG and Unforgettableid (even though the latter seems to be not entirely active). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Holmes[edit]

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

Non-notable, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all this especially the IMDb shows she is not notable not even generally. Notifying tagger Melcous. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 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) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 22 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} 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Hareb[edit]

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

Advert for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this currently suggests a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yasser is an ambitious and a successful person in his field. He has achieved many things in his life and his professional career till now. Also he is a model for the youth in the UAE and the Arab Nation as a person that's why a page was created for him. It's not an advertising for him as mentioned. Please consider this point before deleting the page. Thanks.Badis1988 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what is needed for this to be a better article is solid in-depth third-party sources coverage (see general notability guidelines). SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. notable thou art not, fade into history thou must. Reads like a ad on top of all this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and the article is very promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 23 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Golebiewski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the reasoning at WP:NOPAGE the name of this state university student should be immortalized at Miss Connecticut USA for her WP:15MOF. WP:NOPAGE assumes notability, but argues that in some cases the information should be summarized in an appropriate list, which this is a classic example of.

Article reads in its entirety:

Ashley Golebiewski is an American beauty pageant titleholder from Berlin, Connecticut.[1] She was named Miss Connecticut USA 2015.[2][3] She went to theMiss USA 2015 pageant on July 12, 2015, but was not a finalist.[4][5][6] Golebiewski, a first-generation American, is the daughter of Mirek and Eva Golebiewski.[4] She is a 2012 graduate of Mercy High School, a private, Roman Catholic, all-girls high school in Middletown, Connecticut.[2][7] As of November 2014, she attended Central Connecticut State University, studying Business and Finance.[4] Golebiewski's first pageant win was in the Miss Polonia Connecticut pageant in 2011.[4]

Fails WP:NMODEL too.

Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD 1 by Legacypac was closed as "Keep all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability." AfD 2, again by Legacypac was closed as "Keep". The article provides reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability, one that passed community consensus just this year. This continued abuse of process needs to be put to an end once and for all; Legacypac nominating the same article over and over (and over and over) again until he gets the demanded deletion is simply disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User should probably give it a rest. Artw (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per outcome of nom 1 and nom 2 as well as Artw. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Legacypac you do realize renominating again and again AND AGAIN won't get the article deleted? ..... Although I did !vote delete in the previous 2 I perhaps wasn't aware of the sources, Either way it meets GNG and it's an obvious Keep so kindly give up renominating this article and go do something productive. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, without opposition to Merge/Redirect if there's an appropriate target - The article provides exclusively local and primary sources. My own search turns up a little more, but not much, and nearly all of it comes from the same span of a few days, for the same event, saying more or less the same thing. It's tenuous whether a stand-alone article is justified. But given that the nomination is ... we'll say "unconventional" ... and because sourcing isn't abominable, I'm having a hard time saying delete here. What I will say is that while this nomination is less than ideal, it is not the case that Legacypac nominated previously based on not liking the close. The first nomination, though the closer used the word "keep", was closed as a "you nominated too many", with subsequent instructions to renominate one or a few of them at a time. DGG even said of his close, "Personally, fwiw, I certainly hope most of them get deleted" (based on separate/smaller nominations). ...Anyway, I'm not trying to open a discussion of that first AfD here -- my only point for bringing it up is because it seems like Legacypac is being characterized as nominating this three distinct times rather than nominating once, being directed to nominate fewer at a time so renominating, and then this one. Not that that necessarily changes anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian War and the War on Terror[edit]

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

The article reads like a personal essay. The topic is already well covered in Syrian Civil War. Delete or merge into the main article. Zanhe (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this article is packed with WP:SYNTH, and per WP:NOTESSAY. sst✈^(discuss) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK for material that already exists at the article for the Syrian Civil War. If there is anything salvageable, then I recommend a selective merge to that article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:40, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India-West[edit]

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

Most sources are from their own website. The Avengers 07:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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 merge and redirect as mentioned and there's no noticeable need for any further comments (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ethiopia, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. I originally prodded this article and it went 7 days unchallenged. it was deleted, and then the admin decided to restore this with the rationale that there exists other embassies within a template. I questioned this and others have been deleted to. the discussion with the admin is here, however they have not responded to my questions to explain how the rationale to restore a deleted article is flawed. so now I'm at AfD LibStar (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies can certainly qualify for Wikipedia articles if they can be well-sourced over WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG — but they don't get an automatic entitlement to keep a poorly sourced or unsourced article just because they exist. Redirect to Canada–Ethiopia relations, a logical place for a topic of this type to be discussed if it hasn't earned a standalone article of its own. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canada–Ethiopia relations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canada–Ethiopia relations. I looked for reliable sources that discuss the significance of the Ethiopian embassy in Ottowa, but the only source I found was this CBC article that includes a one-sentence mention of the embassy's staff. Because there are no reliable sources that substantiate this subject's significance, I don't think it passes WP:GNG, so I think merging this article is the best course of action. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Martinez (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NN looking through google reveals almost nothing and google music doesn't show any of his albums. Jab843 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources can be found, article is based on original research and opinions by author.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this from an inclusionist. While there's not requirement that an album be on Google Music (there are rights negotiations, after all), or indeed any online music store, the albums on Apple Music appear to be self-published. On the other hand, I did find a review of one such album from what might be a reliable source. We might need to get a weigh-in from someone who can check French-language sources. If the article stays, it definitely needs rewrites from its promotional style. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this even minimally suggests better marginal notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor. VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dusan Mravec[edit]

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

Sources are not reliable The Avengers 00:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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 merge to Seminar. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senior seminar[edit]

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

This is an entirely obvious definition of a generic term. This is not an encyclopedic subject, and it's not an encyclopedia article. The citations are either WP:EL posed as fake citations or just general coursework. The rest is WP:NOTDIR. The content was abandoned, as there is no encyclopedic premise or possibility for expansion. — Smuckola (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I previously nominated this article for deletion, and I still think it ought to be deleted. Yes, the word seminar is often used with the word senior preceding it as a qualifier, however it does nto follow that this is a notable topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into seminar or some other related article, I think the information is suitable for the encyclopedia, but not as a standalone article. Also it's not really WP:NOTDIR because knowing where such courses are offered is relevant information.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete or Merge into seminar for reasons indicated previously. No references. Generic (and non-encyclopedic) discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is too broken to function in a notification template, so I don't know if you'll see this. The prose is written in a vague yet globally subjective way, so it is entirely unencyclopedic. As such, there's nothing to merge unless you call the salvaging of a sentence fragment or two for some reason a "merge". There's just no meaningful content here, as the reader would need to already know everything about the subject in order to decipher it. It should have never been created. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect in any case as there's nothing outstanding to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 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.