Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 December	20 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 speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chanticleer (ensemble)[edit]

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

Unsourced ensemble. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid reason advanced for deletion. Article is not unsourced, and the NYTimes obituary of its founder is such strong evidence of notability that nom's failure to address it is enough to defeat the AFD. AFD should not be used to complain about lack of sources when notability is sufficiently evidenced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:52, 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. Biblioworm 19:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entefy[edit]

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

Non notable company--the third party sources are 1/ a local newspaper, which is not reliable for local companies, 2/ the promotional write up in Silicon Valley Business Journal--important as such journals go because of its location, but still primarily a source for promotion. 3/Directory entries in Crunchbase 4/a link to her patent. Promotional article with promotional wording, just like the one on the cofounder at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brienne Ghafourifar Note the wording: "meaningful insights""product vision" "on all your devices" DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better than the expected press releases and passing mentions, nothing for a better article at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is not notable and doesn't even have significant impact on the local market. Arashtitan talk 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep As mentioned in my comment under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brienne, this company is regularly cited (locally and nationally) in media for the innovative work (as judged by current news against top competitors) as well as the world record set by one of the founders, Brienne in direct connection with the Company.Wheysted (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are mentions of the company and its co-founder in that CNN piece and elsewhere in relation to the film She Started It, which does seem to me to be possibly more notable element. As for this company and Brienne, probably one article would have sufficed for the pair of them. Entefy may yet "tame the chaos of modern communication," a gag-worthy line that would still need to be cut if the article's kept. As for now, this may just be a question of WP:TOOSOON. If the company manages to garner some notability above and beyond being profiled in She Started It, then an article could be recreated. As for now, I agree with the nominator: delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about She Started It would easily clear notability and then Entefy could be redirected or merged into that for the time being, until it gets its own notability. Sbwoodside (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 26 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. Biblioworm 19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brienne Ghafourifar[edit]

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

A7 speedied by User:DGG. I've removed the tag. At the time it was tagged for speedy deletion, the first two references were articles on her in the San Jose Mercury News (with her sibling) and CNN (with other young female tech entrepreneurs). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider neither to have made a bona fide claim for significance, though I probably should have added G11. I certainly don't think they make a claim for notability, nor does anything that's been added. I've listed her company for deletion also, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entefy, That's the other half of the promotional campaign. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then I suppose I should point out that the same editor, the same day, also created Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations, a documentary film produced by her father. It reads like an advert and I've tagged it as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

right. I normally do check for other contributions, and I seem to have skipped it this time. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is certainly interesting but perhaps simply nothing for an outstandingly better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia and the allied and associated pages (including her company, her father's page and her father's movie) are insignificant, advertisement and created by the same user. Arashtitan talk 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To address the concern of my adding three pages in the same day, I needed to get the ball rolling so that I could continue to update each and flesh them out.

Regarding Brienne, she’s clearly highlighted by both local and national media as a “world record holder” as well as an up-and-coming leader in women tech entrepreneurship. In learning about her story, I consider her progress and coverage to meet the notability threshold for a wiki article. I’ve recently made some updates to the page to better capture this--referencing forbes, fast company, cnn, etc.

Also, the company, Entefy Inc., is readily mentioned alongside Brienne, both in conjunction with her success as well as of the impressive work they’re doing as well, thus the notability should reasonably extend.

FYI, in my research, I discovered her father and his connection to a bona fide film, so I updated his page with reference to his daughter and re-created the film page quickly, which I noticed was deleted previously for no real reason, that I could tell. I've made updates to those pages as well to address the advert comments. Again, my own research and quick content packaging.Wheysted (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too soon. There are now a lot of sources after a refbomb, but most of them are interviews or superficial coverage in self-congratulatory Bay-area "start-up culture" blogs and borderline PR outfits. The rest are listing her as an example related to She Started It. Trying to assess the reliability of these sources is a great way to win at buzzword bingo, but there's very little indication of fact-checking or strong editorial oversight. One good examples is IT Business Edge (The website's banner says "IT Business Edge - an IT Business Edge site". How helpful). It's mainly an advertising outfit, not a reliable source. The "world record" she holds doesn't appear to be one of recognized significance. Has anyone verified this record? Who came in second? Who held the record before she did? Nobody seems to care outside of PR. The sources suggest that maybe She Started It is noteworthy, but I don't think that extends to Ghafourifar yet. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheysted (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comment, I did some additional research and uncovered the following:

1. If the question is around WP:RELIABLE, then the key citations from credible journalistic sources such as NBC's Press:Here, CNN Money, Forbes, Fast Company, San Jose Mercury News, IT Business Edge, Santa Clara University, etc. meets the reliability criteria. I appreciate you singling out IT Business Edge and your own opinion about it being "an advertising outfit." Would you dismiss CNN by the virtue of it being owned by Time Warner, an advertising and sponsored content driven media conglomerate? 2. Wikipedia's fundamental principals WP:FIVEPILLARS, specifically WP:5P2 states "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view...Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." So far, in these discussions for this article and the others, I have come across several instances of subjective editor biases rather than facts such as the following:

"Too soon." Not sure how this connects to this article.
"refbomb." After hearing editor feedback earlier in this discussion, I took diligent time to add sources to address some of the concerns presented by fellow editors. Happy to correct the refbomb if there's a better format.
New sources being dismissed as "...but most of them are interviews or superficial coverage in self-congratulatory Bay-area 'start-up culture' blogs and borderline PR outfits." I find the dismissal opinionated and subjective.
"...buzzword bingo..." Was this an opinion or an editorial fact?
"...very little indication of fact-checking or strong editorial oversight." Any evidence to support this?
"One good examples is IT Business Edge (The website's banner says "IT Business Edge - an IT Business Edge site". How helpful)." Opinion/sarcasm as well as logical fallacy. Regardless of IT Business Edge, refer to point 1 above regarding the variety reliable sources in support of this article.
"The "world record" she holds doesn't appear to be one of recognized significance. Has anyone verified this record? Who came in second? Who held the record before she did? Nobody seems to care outside of PR." Outside of PR? What does Wikipedia consider CNN Money, Fast Company, Forbes, NBC's Press:Here, etc.? Further, what is the basis for the world record being insignificant?
"...but I don't think that extends to Ghafourifar yet." Clear opinion.

Let's move to keep the article and let me know if there are any other improvements I can make to the page.Wheysted (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, so brief, highly promotional articles do not carry as much weight as more serious sources which treat the subject in greater depth. This point is emphasized by relevant notability guidelines.

When I said too soon, I meant exactly that. See WP:TOOSOON.

Superficial coverage is something that Wikipedia articles specifically should avoid when possible, per WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and many others besides. Interviews are usable for establishing content in an article, but are much, much less desirable for establishing notability.

The Forbes one is by a "contributor", which is a sign that it's a borderline WP:SPS. Forbes does still publish real journalism but now they also act as an increasingly indiscriminate blogging platform, similar to Huffington Post. Blogs are not usable as sources in articles about living people unless they are treated as WP:PRIMARY sources, in which case they are not usable for establishing notability. See WP:BLPSPS for more.

The CNN and Fast Company are both reliable sources, but they are brief articles about the movie She Started It, and as I said, the movie may be notable, but having been featured in a film of unestablished notability doesn't automatically transmit notability.

See the article about QuinStreet (IT Business Edge) to understand why I say it's not a reliable source, or try to find any page on their site that explains editorial policies. Regardless, interviews are not valued for establishing notability, because they are not independent of the subject. This is explained in WP:BIO. I was sarcastic because I don't believe the site is worthy of respect. The other interviews may be from more respectable outlets, but they are still interviews, mostly for local/niche-interest audiences.

Women at the Frontier, Women 2.0, VLAB, and MOGUL (website) do not appear to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required by WP:RS. There are a massive number of blogs run by incubators and start-ups writing about entrepreneurship. Some of these are usable, but most are not. I checked the sites to try and learn more about them, but I didn't search WP:RSN, so maybe the consensus of other editors is that they are usable. I don't think they are, because they are either publishing aggregator content, or are advocating for a specific goal or agenda. That may be laudable, but not here.

The world record is a claim to notability, but it is not a legitimate one for Wikipedia's purposes, again, per WP:BIO. Fortune 500 or Guinness aren't specifically keeping track of this record, and nobody else seems to be commenting on it in general, so it's not usable in the way a noteworthy award would be. If taken at face value this is arguably an impressive feat, but nobody is saying where this claim came from, or how it could possibly be verified, which suggests that it's a form of puffery.

If you don't agree, I can understand that. This is often a messy process. We are having this discussion so we can reach consensus around policy. The process involves distilling a large number of policies, guidelines, and vastly differing interpretations of those things into something actionable. Grayfell (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy There are plenty of sources, so I think she should pass GNG: she's obviously been noticed! I found some hits on EBSCO, too: [1], [2]. If everyone thinks it's TOOSOON, I think "userfying" without prejudice is the way to go, since Wheysted has put in a lot of work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

debated for notability, legitimacy of world record, reliable sources Wheysted (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable at this point in time. While several of the other delete !votes make cogent points, Grayfell's is the most in-depth, and I can add nothing to that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant case of WP:TOOSOON. Likely to be notable in the future, but there's no point holding onto an article until then -- samtar ^whisper 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not notable at this point in time, like others have mentioned. There is a lack of in depth coverage. Cheers, 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atwar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources covering the game, either as AtWar or Afterwind. Doesn't seem like there's even a Metacritic page for it. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Metacritic page, it's incorrectly titled: [3]. There's no reviews though so no help in showing notability, I can't find any significant coverage from reliable video game sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Displays no references under WP:GNG. Sudden interest on this article erupted after the managers started to ask every player to edit it --Usien6 ^{msg • his} 01:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to Redirect i can't believe I'm saying this but this started as a not too bad Neelix redirect to a Iraqi journalist who was murdered and received several press freedom awards. This game is at least as notable as your typical pageant winner. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the redirect sounds okay to me --Usien6 ^{msg • his} 14:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as nothing from the current article suggests even minimally better notabiltiy and improvement with my searches finding nothing better at all. Notifying Meters who has frequented this article as shown by the history. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. User:SwisterTwister I noticed the redirect being turned into an article (hence no new page review) and I was just keeping an eye on it to keep the worse of the junk out while I waited to see if the authors would make any reasonable claim to notability. I didn't see any signs of it turning into a useful article, so I punted to the nominator to see if he or she knew of any reliable sources (games are not my area). Meters (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, Neelix or no, I don't object to restoring the original redirect if it's useful. In fact, if this article were to survive (as unlikely as that seems) the article should be "AtWar" rather than "Atwar", leaving the redirect still available. Meters (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG with no reliable, secondary, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. It appears all the current sourcing is either primary or unreliable (user-based). I cannot find any more sources for either title. The article is primarily WP:GAMECRUFT. Original redirect seems reasonable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:01, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkha, Raebareli[edit]

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

This article is about a small village, without any significant history. Any detail about this article is not available on internet or in books,So it will be quiet difficult to reference any thing written about this article

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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only sources mentioning the village is this and this, which only note that it is an estate in Rae Bareli. Meatsgains (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps some Indian Wikipedians can be asked to try and find some info about the village; however, if they cannot then the article should be deleted.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND, as a populated place that seems to be legally recognised. However, from the details given in the article, the actual name of the place seems to be Arkha Mustakil, and its geographical coordinates are 25.869°N, 81.311°E PWilkinson (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Even the delete voters verify it's a village. And how does the nom know further information on this topic is not available in books? Have they read every book in English and Hindi in history? --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Even has its own railway station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~:Eventhough this village has railway station but sources about this article are nowhere on internet. I am a close by resident and I know a lot about of it. It has many things that can be written on this article, but where I will find references to support my added contents. --Abhisheks 91 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking vote. Note that this is the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 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. Biblioworm 19:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manitonquat[edit]

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

Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. The one third-party source in this is a broken link. Earlier versions of this were basically an advert, sourced only to the authors statements about himself. Flagged for needing WP:RS sourcing for quite a while now, and none have been forthcoming. SPAs show up occasionally to add more unsourced peacockery. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: secondary news sources, to establish notability, are lacking.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cultural appropriation, WP:FRINGE viewpoints. WP isn't a place for free advertising. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Author doesn't appear notable (have been unable to find useable citations), but his children's book The Children of the Morning Light: Wampanoag Tales as Told By Manitonquat definitely is, with reviews by Kirkus Reviews - [4], Publishers Weekly - [5], Booklist - [6], School Library Journal - [7], The Horn Book Magazine - [8] and The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - [9], so it meets WP:NBOOK. Kirkus also reviewed The Original Instructions - [10] but this does not make the author notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that, whether or not the book is considered notable due to mainstream/non-Native press coverage, that does not mean the book is accurate or what the author claims it is. I know accuracy does not affect notability, and we have plenty of authors and books on WP that are notable for being hoaxes. Just noting for the record that there are issues with the book itself, even if it people think it's notable. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:CorbieVreccan, i look forward to you adding a "Controversies" section when/if i create an article on the book

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources; he fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. His claim to be a co-founder of Rainbow Gatherings is not supported by any source, nor is there any evidence that he is a member of one of the tribes based in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest whose members founded the first Rainbow Gathering. While I do not believe that his book The Children of the Morning Light is notable under the guidelines, it wouldn't matter if it were. I found nothing to support notability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nora A. Gordon[edit]

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

Many missionaries are notable, but there have to be more sources than brief entires in biographical dictionaries. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this question was raised. It should provoke some thoughtful (and I trust, irenic) discussion. I had written this article in response to a call for article creation by WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in religion. On the talk page for the project, I raised the question of notability. In this case, I believe she was added to their list because she was considered notable as a pioneering African-American missionary, an enterprise which had previously been full of Europeans and their descendants. And back at Spelman, she continued to recruit more to join her. She was not "just another missionary". Pete unseth (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear notability. African American woman, whose parents were slaves, educated as a teacher in 1880s were certainly not the norm in her time frame. Nor were women, regardless of race, often granted missionary posts. That she was the first Spelman graduate so placed, is significant. Multiple independent sources cited in the file, but additional sources are found as well. here newspapers.com article credited with beginning Spelman's missionary tradition, acclaimed missionary with additional source citations, founded a seminary in Africa in 1890 Does not appear as if WP:BEFORE was done. SusunW (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2015

Keep As SusunW pointed out, there are plenty of sources. Whether or not we agree with missionary work (I don't ), it has had a huge impact on the world, the US and on African Americans in particular. Article clearly passes GNG too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SusunW has found some significant sources that demonstrate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "but there have to be more sources than brief entires[sic] in biographical dictionaries" Why? We have many articles based on e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly has adequate sourcing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 24 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. Biblioworm 19:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Balfour, 5th of Balbirnie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being "a gentleman" and having arguably notable offspring is not sufficient. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His father and one of his sons were Members of Parliament and therefore notable. Another of his sons was a general and therefore notable. Notability is not inherited, either up or down the family tree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article can benefit from further revision Arashtitan talk 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. He doesn't seem to have accomplished much, so unless he made a cameo appearance in the latest Star Wars movie, further revision would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:Notability (people). The only mentions of him I found were in peerage directories (Debrett's, Burke's) or as someone's relative. WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:NOTGENEALOGY. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 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 deleted per G7. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum anthropology[edit]

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

This article is about an idea that society may be understood in terms of quantum mechanical principles. I'm concerned that this may not meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FRINGE, or the standards of coverage of scientific topics (falsifiability-can it be proven false? etc.) I've contacted the page's creator Wikiditor, who describes it as "an emerging fields, so I do not found more articles. I think that this could be a really important field. If you find some more information I will be grateful." Blythwood (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refine it (that this is an emerging field). I will be really sad, if the article will be deleted. I spend much time on it. I think that for article notability you need two references and there is two scientific articles and books about it. Wikiditor (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Five articles in academic journals and one monograph published by Cambridge University Press sound like significant coverage in reliable sources to me. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, I am going to add 4 new references to this article (see below) - more specifically, 2 peer-reviewed scientific articles and 2 scientific books. Now, there will be together 4 peer-reviewed scientific articles, 3 scientific books and 1 scientific book chapter. I hope that this structure of resources confirms the notability of the issue significantly.Wikiditor (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you in advance,[reply]

New references:

Rapport, N. J. (2013). A quantum anthropology of contemporary moments of being: Seven observations. Social Analysis. 57, 2, p. 117-128. link: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/berghahn-books/a-quantum-anthropology-of-contemporary-moments-of-being-seven-Tguqf171KZ

Pownell S. (1996). Quantum anthropology. Anthropology News, Volume 37, Issue 4, DOI: 10.1111/an.1996.37.4.2.2. link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/an.1996.37.4.2.2/abstract

Kirby V. (2011). Quantum anthropologies: Life at large. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. link: https://www.dukeupress.edu/quantum-anthropologies/index.html

Barad K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. link: https://www.dukeupress.edu/Meeting-the-Universe-Halfway/

Delete, I rather don't think those references all mean the same thing when they talk of "quantum anthropology"; many of them seem to use "quantum" only as a buzzword. The Wikipedia article's content hasn't changed since those additional references were added; they merely serve as window dressing. In particular, the new references largely predate the one in which supposedly the "basic principles of quantum anthropology were formulated". The content of our article is based on something published in a journal on theology, not either anthropology or quantum physics, plus some self-published paper not subject to peer review. It might theoretically be possible to write a decent article about "quantum anthropology"; this is not that article. WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not mean that these publications use "quantum" only as a buzzword. The basic principles of quantum anthropology are mentioned there. I agree that the article could be better, for this reason I wrote it and published on Wikipedia. I hope that community help to improve it rather than destroy.Wikiditor (talk) 22:08, 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. Biblioworm 19:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Zand[edit]

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

This article does not pass GNG or BLP, as its sources are not reliable and independent nor do they discuss the subject in-depth. A Google search for better sources revealed nothing. Delta13C (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article written by SPA promoting a non-notable BLP which fails GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is difficult for me to recommend deletion of a person about whom Stern said Janet Zand ist so etwas wie Hollywoods Guru für alternative Medizin und Behandlungsmethoden. here. Zand was cofounder of Zand Herbal Products, that worked for more than two decades as a market leader in the herbal industry. "Hall of Legends 2015: Janet Zand". NewHope360.com. Penton Media, Inc. 23 March 2015. (indexed by Gale Group in Academic OneFile). She is an inventor, US Patent Issued to Board of Regents, the University of Texas System, Neogenis Labs on Feb. 24 for "Nitrite Formulations and Their Use as Nitric Oxide Prodrugs" and her many published works are cited. (GoogleScholar) There is an in-depth article about her in Smith, R. L. (February 1992). "Natural health care". Total Health. Vol. 14, no. 1. p. 37 ff. where Smith says that she was a trailblazer in the natural health world of herbs, homeopathy and acupuncture. In Dowdle, Hillari (May 2007). "Wise up!". Natural Health. Vol. 37, no. 5. pp. 60 ff. she was noted as one of the best minds in holistic health. --Bejnar (talk)

Hi, Bejnar. I'm not sure that those last sources you cited are reliable. It appears you have access to these publications (Total Health and Natural Health). Can you please link to or post excerpts of these? I am also not convinced that citing a patent is evidence that she is notable. The Stern mention of Zand is barely in-depth. That article mentions she is "Hollywood's guru for alternative medicine," which is a statement very complicated with WP:FRINGE issues. Delta13C (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The patent was used simply to show breadth of her work, and help explain why she is considered both a trailbrazer and justified in being placed in the "Hall of Legends", it doesn't go to coverage, but I do believe that it helps show that her research has made a significant impact in her discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, regardless of whether it is a WP:FRINGE discipline. Both Total Health and Natural Health are magazines with both fact-checking and editorial oversight, regardless of whether they are dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic. Again, I accessed their full-text via Gale, this time via their magazine index. As the entire Total Health article was about Zane, I am faced with a copyright problem in providing a copy. You might check worldcat.org to see if a library near you has holdings, OCLC 909907187; or many public libraries and educational libraries subscribe to Gale daatabases, so you might have access quite nearby. (I used the Gale databases at my local public library.) The Stern article is again not so-much for coverage, as to show her position in the field, which I believe provides her notability, so long as there is other coverage, which there is. The Natural Health article covers a number of individuals, but with respect to Zand, in addition to including her at the top of her field, as background the author acknowledges Zand as author of Smart Medicine for Healthier Living (Avery, 1999), and goes on to discuss Zand's work with phosphatidylserine and its affects on memory and concentration. Not as much depth as I would like, especially as compared to the Smith article. The author, Hillari Dowdle, was a regular contributor to Natural Health. I hope this helps. --Bejnar (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thorough reply, but I disagree on several points. A patent cannot indicate that the submitter is a "trailblazer." With such a description, you are using puffery, which extraordinarly exceeds the scope of the patent as a source of information about Zand. How does this indicate she has made any kind of scientific impact? Are there scholarly works to demonstrate this claim that you know about? I could not find any. I am suspicious of the magazines Total Health and Natural Health being reliable sources. They are self-claimed alt-med publications, which also suffer from fringe issues. What does being at the "top of her field" actually mean in terms of achievements, contributions, or other sources of notability? I see you write "phosphatidylserine" in your argument, but when I search for her name with that term, the only results are naturalnews.com and its ilk. Delta13C (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you with your beliefs. I did not pick the word "trailbrazer" it comes from the Smith article, I prefer the pioneer, but that has its connotation as well. Look at her articles in GoogleScholar and how they are cited; it won't change your mind, but it might give you a better idea of where I am coming from. Generally, I am considered a "deletionist" (see [[11]]); but when I find more than sixty articles mentioning or covering Janet Zand in a magazine index which does not contain all the cruft on Google, I give things a second look. I am not one to exclude someone on the basis that their area is WP:FRINGE. The factual basis of what they believe may be flawed, but I find that true in the mainstream as well. We are not here to report "truth", we are here to compile a cultural artifact, an encyclopedia, that reflects the secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the guidelines for fringe figures apply here, and we do not have enough coverage to justify an article under such guidelines. I would also point out that lots of people, including my own father, have lots of patents (he holds over 20) but come no where near to passing the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as Books, News, browsers, Highbeam and Scholar all found links here and there but perhaps there's not a noticeably better notable article yet. DGG, is there any familiar area insight you can add to this AfD? SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with rationale presented by nominator and John Pack Lambert. The lack of coverage in reliable sources mean that notability has not been demonstrated, when judging against WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMICS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general, fringe sources in popular health are even more prone to promotionalism than are similar mainstream sources in that field, and are therefore justifiably regarded with some degree of skepticism. But any source will be regarded with skepticism when they make claims of exceptionally great importance for people who seem to have done relatively little. Quite apart from all that, the article is entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 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. Biblioworm 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation[edit]

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

This article does not cite a single reliable independent source that gives more than a passing mention to the subject. It serves mainly as a WP:COATRACK to attempt to legitimise a condition which is not recognised in the medical literature. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few glancing mentions in RS, but not the sort of coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is counterproductive when you exaggerate. There are two reliable independent sources that discuss the foundation and its research from internationally respected publications. It is also not accurate to say the condition is not recognized in the medical literature. There are a handful of meta-reviews in the medical literature that acknowledge the condition although they do admit we need to learn more. For example, start with [12], [13], and [14]. This is an orphan illness caused by a pharmaceutical product so you will never see the same level of public interest as you will for a more mainstream illness or one where pharmaceutical industries have an incentive to acknowledge it exists. Regardless of how this turns out, if this page is deleted it should be revisited once the foundation gets more media attention which will inevitably occur once the studies are published in what looks like the not too distant future. Doors22 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the article contains no reliable independent sources which go beyond namechecks. You interpret the very short mentions differently, but then, you have been pushing "post-Finasteride syndrome" for nearly five years, almost form your first edit, so it seems likely that you are either a True Believer or, quite likely, a member or supporter of this group. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doors22: "that discuss the foundation and its research" ← I'm sorry, could you provide links to where this "discussion" of the foundation (yes, the foundation itself) occurs? Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Finasteride. The subject is important to those who are using or thinking about using these drugs. As indicated by Doors22, there are some independent WP:RSs. WP:Truth comes into play. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already cover this in Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nobody's trying to suppress The Truth™, the issue is whether this pressure group is actually notable in its own right. Compare for example the Morgellons Research Foundation which has many more passing mentions but was also deleted because none of them are about the foundation, they only mention it as a group trying to legislate a non-disease into existence. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was 7&6=thirteen's implication that anybody was trying to suppress the truth, but now that you bring it up it has felt like several editors have been trying to do so since initial links were established years ago. If this were not the case, why is every addition met with such hostility when Wikipedia is updated in an attempt to reflect the most up-to-date publications and incremental evidence demonstrating the syndrome? Over the past several years, nearly a dozen WP:RS have been added to the medical literature and the FDA even changed the adverse event label yet little has changed on Wikipedia to reflect the growing credibility.Doors22 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing anybody of willfully suppressing anything. I simply think that this organization exists, and can best be understood, in the larger context of Finasteride, both pro and con. Fortunately, I still have my hair, although it is all grey. As my brother-in-law (who has a widow's peak) says: 'Better turncoats than deserters.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about the foundation, not the syndrome. There are sources that discuss the foundation. BluenR (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Please add them to the article, which currently has no sources that discuss the foundation. A quick reminder of WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." That's a hurdle the existing sources absolutely do not clear. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group. Article is a coatrack for a disputed clinical entity. Many many many threads on Talk:Finasteride on this. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage seems to be the single review on HealthNewsReview.org. That is not enough to cross the threshold demanded by WP:ORG. jps (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage, no need for a redirect, no need for a merger. It is fully covered at Finasteride#Society and culture. Don't forget to remove the PFS Foundation and Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation redirects, although a bot should get them if you do. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage of the Foundation in reliable sources (I just added another). This does not imply legitimacy of the syndrome - that is a separate matter. — soupvector (talk) 16:28, 26 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. Biblioworm 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Eickermann[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or BLP. The article cites poor sources, and a search for other sources turned up nothing. This seems to be a puff article. Delta13C (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article on him in Die Weldt but very little otherwise. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated, no reliable sources to confirm notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 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. Biblioworm 19:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin Samuel West[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources, so it seems that this guy is not notable. Therefore, the article failes WP:BIO. A search for more sources turned up nothing. Delta13C (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He died in 2004, so it's not a BLP. His Deseret News obituary is online, but doesn't seem to be a news obituary of the sort that might support notability. [15] I couldn't find any independent substantial sources about him. The text of the article relates an interesting story that might be understood to make a claim that he was a notable advocate of alternative medicine, but I didn't find any substantial sources to support this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This individual seems to have gone by his middle name Samuel. He is often referred to as C. Samuel West. This is a link to the website of an organization he founded [16], which lists him as C. Samuel West. Not really an indepedent source, but the start of something. I have to admit that I have to wonder about an article that name drops about people who spoke at a graduation ceremony where the person received a degree. That seems like reaching for links to something to make him notable that do not have any real meaning. If someone graduated from the University of Notre Dame the year President Obama spoke at the graduation, even if they were recieving a doctorate, we would not mention it at all in the article on that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I did come across seem to indicate that West was an advocate of alternative medicine that would be counted as a fringe theory. They tend towards the weak and disparate, and do not seem to meet the requirements we have for sourcing of articles on fringe theorists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susun Weed[edit]

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

Non notable alt-med practitioner. Article fails GNG and BLP, and furthermore, is poorly written and cites no sources. A Google search resulted in no other reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Delta13C (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close There are 2 AFD discussions next to each other on the log, so one should be closed Seasider91 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP is unsourced and subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REALLY?! REALLY!?!? There is a huge discussion right now about how women editors and subjects are excluded from Wikipedia. Women are FIGHTING to have important women included in Wikipedia. This woman has written 5 books. What do you want???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I am one of the very very few women editors on Wikipedia. But I have stopped editing because of stupid idiotic deletions like this. This is not only incredibly discouraging it fills me with rage. I fucking give up. --CDA 15:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the GNG criteria. We consider articles on people on the basis of sources covering them, not on emotional evaluation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 24 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. Biblioworm 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Group[edit]

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

Created in 2006, this has never had an independent source. Tagged to that effect for four years, tagged for notability for 18+ months. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO found almost nothing for this Ankur Group, only ~75 words that appear to originate with the organization,[17] and the same brief paragraph repeated in a list of 2007-2008 initiatives.[18] Wikipedia is not a directory of all software groups that exist or have ever existed. Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, does not satisfy WP:GROUP. Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly acceptable article especially with all this ample time to improve it, there's nothing to suggest even minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unsourced, so even if notable would require a 100% rewrite, and it contains unsourced BLP info. Note that there is a Bengali Wikipedia page, but it has had no prose edits since 2006. @Aftabuzzaman: made an edit on the article there as well as the one here, and is active here, so I am pinging him. If deleted, there are three pages that will need editing: Ankur, IndLinux, and Indic computing; and Ankur Bangla will need deleting. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Worldbruce. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:20, 26 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. Biblioworm 19:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gediminas Kruša[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that the last afd was two years ago and that he's played for a new club since. However, the club does not play in a fully pro league and he has not received significantly more coverage, meaning the underlying notability concerns from two years ago are still valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FPL states that the top flight in Lithuania is not fully professional, therefore this player fails WP:FOOTBALL Seasider91 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still hasn't played in a fully pro league. No improvement from previous AfD. Spiderone 10:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:19, 26 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 Negrophilia. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afrophilia[edit]

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

Topic does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources - it's occasionally used, but only in passing, indicating that this is a WP:DICDEF at best. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophile. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect per Rhododentrites. per WP:NOTDICT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article reads like a dictionary, not encyclopedia. Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -This article is similar to and more widely quoted than other current Wikipedia words such as; Lusophilia and Estophilia. It clearly has a legitimate place here.

No, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Very probably those other articles should also be deleted; their existence proves nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Negrophilia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I closed as Redirect but after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophile at AFD I've decided to undo the close (Atleast to me it makes sense to redirect both instead of just one but consensus is to delete the other one so I'm leaving this open). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the presumed target is Negrophilia. Probably the other AfD didn't notice this as a possible target. Not sure what else we can do really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it quite offensive that a prefix that is predominantly associated with subjugation is being used a a pretext for redirecting a page about affection for inhabitants of a major continent. Furthermore, in the search returns I have seen, the terms are usually not used interchangeably. Contrib raati (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other term is certainly obsolete, indeed, and this article now contains what look like reliable sources. Perhaps both Afrophile and Negrophilia should instead redirect here; there seems no justification for three articles, and not much for two, on this subject. Happy to be persuaded which of the three is the one to keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 26 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) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Make Me Lesbian![edit]

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG, and violates WP:NOTDIR. NightMoves awards are marginally notable at best, were discounted by broad consensus as contributing to notability in discussions regarding PORNBIO, and fall well below the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". (The award is given by a non-notable local giveaway magazine passed out in strip clubs and porn stores). No independent sourcing, reliable or otherwise. Just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of castlists. PROD removed by article creator on the spurious basis that every notable film award meets the "major award for excellence" standard of NFILM. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's reasoning is impeccable, and I agree completely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. If this article is considered to be up for AfD at all, it should be done by another user. This is not the first time that the nominator has nominated an article I have created for prod or AfD without notifying me; he claims that I said that I had requested not to be notified by him of such notices, but I have never said that about courtesy notices (and if you insist that I did, HW, provide a diff for when I supposedly said that or else stop breaking the rules).

But back to the subject at hand, as I stated in this edit summary, if the award is thought to be non-notable, then wouldn't the article for said award be nominated for deletion first? Otherwise, what's being said here is that the film shouldn't be here because it won a notable award. (In addition, WP:NFILM doesn't specifically mention anything about pornographic films.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An award having a Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily make it a major award for purposes of WP:NFILM. The NightMoves award is not even considered major for the purposes of WP:PORNBIO. It would not pass NFILM even if won an AVN Award given AVN's incestuous relationship with the industry. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times (reliable source/independent of the subject) stated that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23] & [24]). The St. Petersburg Times article doesn't mention what the two largest were, though I assume they were AVN and XRCO. Regardless, we've got these 4 well-known/significant industry awards and NightMoves is bigger than at least two of them. If you want to debate the specific award category, that's fine, but the ceremony is definitely well-known/significant. And Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you think you can use the "delete" outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny Luv as a precedent for all AfD's for NightMoves recipients, you're wrong. That would be as dishonest as trying to use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Duval to argue that ALL Venus Award categories aren't notable. The consensus in both of those discussion was that the specific categories didn't meet PORNBIO because they were only awarded in two years, not that the ceremonies weren't notable. I'm not here to vote, I just want to point out that what is under discussion here is the award category, not the ceremony which is undoubtedly notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please be aware, Rebecca1990, that there is no requirement to notify the article creator of an AfD. Here is the relevant language: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Accordingly, your accusations of "breaking the rules" or disruptive editing are without merit.

You seem to be under the impression that if a notable topic writes about something, or gives an award to something, that this automatically confers notability on that other thing. Consider the Nazi hate newspaper Der Stürmer and the bizarre grocery store checkout line newspaper Weekly World News. Both newspapers are highly notable and worthy of scholarly study, and at the same time, both are utterly unreliable and absolutely worthless for establishing notability. You are confusing notability with reliability. Notable sources can be completely unreliable, and often are.

There is no consensus among editors that winning a NightMoves award confers notability on a porn film or performer. None. Lacking clearcut consensus, this article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not the one who created an article for this film and complained for not being notified about it's AfD, that was Erpert. See? Secondly, I did not refer to the St. Petersburg Times as a "reliable source/independent of the subject" simply because it is notable enough for a WP article. That is not how I determined that it is a reliable source. If you actually read the WP article for the St. Petersburg Times AKA Tampa Bay Times, you'll see that it has won numerous Pulitzer Prizes, which proves that it is reliable. I also didn't say that St. Petersburg Times writing an article on the NightMoves Award automatically makes it notable (I know that WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources in order to be notable, a criteria which NightMoves satisfies by the way), I cited a specific quote from the article stating that NightMoves was the porn industry's third largest awards ceremony. The article was written in 2002 and we have at least four other awards which were also given out that year and are by consensus, notable. I was just pointing out that it is ridiculous not to consider NightMoves notable when there are awards smaller than NightMoves which we do consider notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for getting the comments of two editors confused. Maybe it has something to do with the indenting. The first part was intended for you, Erpert. There is no doubt that the Saint Petersburg Times is a reliable source, but they did not write about this porn film series. I accept for the sake of discussion that the NightMoves awards may be notable, but I do not agree that winning that award confers notability in itself on either porn films or porn performers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The very first criterion of PORNBIO says that winning a notable award is exactly what confers notability ("[the subject] has won a well-known and significant industry award"); moreover, you just acknowledged yourself that the NightMoves Award is notable. If certain categories of NightMoves are questioned on determining notability, that should be saved for another discussion; and as I hinted at above, that should be determined first. (BTW, if you think that my "accusations" of the nominator are without merit, um...you did read the diff I posted above, didn't you?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious to all experienced editors that "notable" is a far lower threshold than "well known and significant". For example, a one term Ohio state legislator who served in 1843-1844 is notable according to WP:POLITICIAN but certainly not "well known and significant". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the subject isn't well-known and significant because it isn't notable right now? You might want to read WP:NTEMP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}

Please try to understand what I actually wrote, Erpert. My example one term 19th century Ohio state legislator is notable forever per our notability guidelines for politicians, and ought to have a biography here. That does not mean that he is "well known and significant", which is a far higher standard. Whether or not NightMoves is "well known and significant" as a porn award is a matter for consensus among interested editors. I say "no". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um...notability for anything on Wikipedia is permanent once said notability has been established. But let's end this here and get back to the topic at hand. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD's I cited above determined that the AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA awards are not only notable, but also well-known/significant enough for their recipients to pass WP:PORNBIO. NightMoves is bigger than two of those awards, so it is also well-known/significant. Like I said, what is under discussion here is the award category, not the entire ceremony. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Amazon, IMDB and IAFD are not sources and should never be used as such! .... The other sources aren't that much better either!, Google brings up nothing to confirm notability, Fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFILM as the nominator states. Run of the mill porn without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. None cited in the article. None found in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we need to slow down here a bit and not try to be so fast & loose with the facts. AVN has no more of an "incestuous relationship with the industry" that it covers than the Academy Awards do with the industry that they serve. I am not aware of any string of recent AfDs that has blanketly determined that the "NightMoves award is not even considered major for the purposes of WP:PORNBIO". "Amazon" is not being used as a source in the article under consideration here, and the sources using IAFD & IMDb are for nothing out of the ordinary (release dates, director credits, running times, etc.).

The lesbian adult film series in question here won a NightMoves Award in one of the only categories that it likely was qualified to win an award (Best All-Girl Release (Fan's Choice)) for...it is yet another fan-based award, which might be considered to be less significant than this ceremony's Editor's Choice Award. There are surely some more significant award categories at the NightMoves Award, and there are likely even less significant award categories at that award ceremony. The relevant standard here under NFILM though is: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking ... Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well." Guy1890 (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominations were removed from PORNBIO, that guideline explicitly stated that the FAME awards were included. The only thing removed from PORNBIO regarding the FAME awards was nominations, but only because ALL nominations for ALL porn awards were excluded from PORNBIO. FAME awards, as long as they are wins, are still considered well-known/significant awards and they are fan voted. A Fan's Choice win is NOT less significant than an Editor's Choice win. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no consensus that winning a NightMoves award confers notability on a porn actor or a porn film. I will continue to oppose that as a pass to notability. Vigorously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it seems to work just fine for Keisha Grey and Jillian Janson. Anyway, if I'm missing the discussion where consensus was reached that NightMoves wins don't count, please direct me to it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. I will put those other articles you mentioned on my watch list and chime in if they are nominated for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you didn't respond to the second part of my statement. Simply saying that a consensus was reached isn't enough; you should be able to prove it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please try to understand what I actually wrote, Erpert. I mean what I say, and nothing more. I never said that there was a clear consensus that winning a NightMoves award does not confer notability. Instead, I said that consensus in favor of that is lacking. The burden is upon those editors who favor the simple winning of a NightMoves award as an assurance of notability to build consensus for that. I will oppose any such consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now)/Userfy per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlvana, which established that a minimum of two different films within a pornographic film series must win an award for Wikipedia to have an article for the whole series. Girlvana won two AVN Awards for "Best All-Girl Release", the exact same award as Please Make Me Lesbian!, but from a different ceremony. Although this is a notable (both the ceremony & category) award, multiple wins are required. The series has won only one award at the moment, but that award does contribute to it's notability. It just needs to win one more award before we can restore the article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that AfD doesn't establish that; a single user suggested that and no one either agreed or disagreed with it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minka (actress)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO. None of the putative awards appear significant Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - winner of many awards, mets of the PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the five award wins are for very obscure awards, falling short for PORNBIO. The fifth, AVN, is arguably scene-related, excluded from PORNBIO. As for supposed RS coverage in citations, one is an interview, a primary source, and a brief writeup in Complex isn't enough by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual awards are all non-notable and therefore fail PORNBIO. The claimed AVN award is spurious; the award would go to the video, not to a performer who appeared in it, and in any event the article subject was not in the cast of the video which won that 1998 award. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's observation above. The AVN Award claim appears to be bogus. Substantial RS coverage not found in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly very well-known at one time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because why should an encyclopedia bother to keep information on someone who isn't the most famous person in the world at this moment in time. Only the most well-known individuals should have an article because who is ever trying to find information on someone who isn't well known? Hobbamock (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of modern pop culture, is it? I assume this comment is sarcastic (although if it is why is there a delete vote in it?). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is sarcastic as well as the Delete. Personally, I am tired of a select few Wikipedian editors and admins deciding what is "notable" and what is not according to a very vague and subjective set of guidelines. To me, that is not the intent of Wikipedia or its mission. Just because someone hasn't won a specific number of awards or been significant enough in someone's point of view, does not make them unworthy of having an entry in Wikipedia. It isn't like this entry is here in lieu of someone else that may be more significant. People have gone through the time and effort to create & maintain articles. This needs to be respected. Unless the article is a fabrication, undocumented or misleading - it should remain!!! Hobbamock (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note: I've edited the article under consideration here. The AVN Award win is legit...it's just for a slightly different year, and it is for a movie that the subject here co-starred in. Without having done of huge amount of research on the subject here myself, her mainstream media appearances seem borderline so far, although one might be able to make an argument that she has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" (big breast).apparent magazine appearances listing Guy1890 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She still didn't win the AVN award; the claim remain spurious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not win any notable awards, therefore she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:02, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Kingsley[edit]

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

Claim to fame has her as an innocent bystander and not a participant so any coverage should reflect the incident not her. In any event, she otherwise fails GNG/PORNBIO. Arguably BLP1E as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better notability for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate arguments. Fleeting, happenstance event does not generate notability absent extremely unusual circumstances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for an article. The superbowl incident isn't enough for notability - she just happened to be in video being broadcast to wrong channel and didn't have anything to do with it directly. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC
Delete Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one thing that makes her have any notice was not at all an act by her, so no claim at all to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:07, 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. Biblioworm 19:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harumichi Yamada[edit]

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

I'd welcome input on this. I'm always oriented towards supporting articles on academics and Wikipedia contributors, but an academic with no publishing history outside Japan that I can find doesn't seem to me to really meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NOTABILITY for enwiki generally. (In particular, if his speciality is UK geography, I'm a bit surprised to see no English-language publications - but I don't.) Blythwood (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[25]] [[26]] UK geography--永続繁栄 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I'm looking at his university biography [27] and there is nothing to suggest he's a specialist in anything related to the UK other than what is apparently an isolated thesis on the residential layout of two Birmingham suburbs [28] which hardly qualifies him for WP:N. Other than what appears to be a Livestream interview [29] he has no footprint in anything other than blogs and a rather tedious bibliography. After going down several rabbit holes attempting to locate decent sources in Japanese to no avail, I'm almost inclined to push for this article to be salted. Jun Kayama 05:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No indication of notability has been provided, so I think that this article also fails WP:ACADEMIC.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 13:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think counterargument is difficult but I tell about in Japanese Wikipedia's talk.--永続繁栄 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read your comment, and all you did was agree with someone else with a severely flawed argument. Having tenure at Tokyo Keizai University for 20+ years and being an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia side of the house fails WP:N. The mess of coverage used as references for that article is on the TKU internal servers on Yamada's own blog page (it clearly says 私的ページ：山田晴通 here [30] here [31] and pages like this [32] or this [33] are hosted on his personal page which is completely unacceptable for use as WP:RS. Japanese Wikipedia has different standards for what is acceptable in terms of references (which accounts for massive differences in articles such as those for AKB48 [34] [35]) by including reams and reams of anecdotes, which is fine - that's how Japan runs everything in print, but that laxity does not change the ground truth: Yamada has absolutely no footprint outside of Japan worth speaking of and this article fails to meet WP:NACADEMICS. Jun Kayama 07:48, 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. And rename to overlapping circles grid. Sandstein 10:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life (geometry)[edit]

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

This is a weird one. voted to be deleted earlier this year, it wasn't. It's not clear why. The only real references to this term being used to describe a geometric pattern are:

one advertisement/blog
An extreme fringe webpage, of no notability "I believe the complete ancient flower of life is an inter-dimensional tool, a portal, a stargate, a window into what some call the inter space plains."
A likely self-published report from a non-notable new-age workshop
A Mathworld entry (the one half-decent source)

This is enough to justify a Wiktionary entry, certainly, but not the article, which is a WP:COATRACK, using the existence of a somewhat-notable pattern to hang a Synthesis of sources, many of which not referring to the flower of life, a huge amount of original research, and a list of unsourced New Age terminology which may - or, more likely, may not be - of any notability.

There are few links to this article, fewer justified.

At the very least, this article needs completely gutted, but if we do that, we run into WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As such, I think we're better off deleting it. We might be able to justify a very brief discussion in tessellation, however. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it was deleted, but it looks like a user made a copy, and later dumped it back into article space with a slightly different title. It was then required to restore the history of the original article for attribution, but the logs don't quite correspond: it's mangled with Flower of Life (manga) which seems to be where sloth monkey is involved from. Pinging Just Chilling and HighInBC. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet checked if this is significantly different than what I deleted, it is very early here. It sure looks familiar. I will check it out after my coffee if another admin does not compare before me. HighInBC 18:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your coffee! My analysis is based on the diff I posted still including the AfD header. What exists now has definitely been significantly edited and in fact already survived a more recent AfD (the one called Flower of Life (geometry) so whether or not it's a copy seems to be moot. But it still might have issues. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yes, I do have a vague memory of this being userfied and then improved. I suppose this new AfD is the best way forward. HighInBC 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all titles - fringe, fails WP:NEOLOGISM, so sick of this being recreated by this guy's followers —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been three phases in the evolution of the subject. Firstly we had multiple occurrences on/as historical artefacts. These are probably unlinked with likely different meanings. Then New Age author Melchizedek took a shine to this symbol, gave it a catchy name and imbued it with doubtful mysticism. The third phase has been the subsequent 15 years or so when it escaped into the wild and there have been widespread appearances of this pattern in popular culture, fashion, jewellery etc. mostly with the appellation 'Flower of Life'. To take just one example, a Google search for "Flower of Life" produces pages of products of this pattern and with this name. What we have now is a widely used definitive geometric pattern with a generally accepted name. There are enough sources out there to meet WP:GNG. Yes, the article and a number of the references are flawed but this is progressively being fixed and meanwhile per WP:NEXIST the deficiencies, some of which are highlighted in this discussion, are not grounds for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, products to sell for money by promising healing powers or whatever. Not the same as WP:RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Rename the mathematics to overlapping circles grid, see discussion below. Currently the article is necessarily poorly-cited WP:OR (hopeful Google searches that fail to pull up any WP:RS notwithstanding) on a WP:FRINGE aspect of supposedly sacred geometry. The arrangement of six circles to create a six-pointed star and a hexagonal array is not remarkable in itself, appearing in a variety of mathematical objects and inevitably in random pieces of art; but the pulling-together of unrelated materials (yeah, even a Da Vinci example, eat your heart out Dan Brown) is totally unencyclopedic. If deletion was already agreed in an earlier AfD I'd say there was probably a mandate for speedy deletion. BTW MathWorld is not necessarily a reliable source; and no, having got the article to GA, we don't want this in Tessellation either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (expanded below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)) but this article needs to be significantly refocused. It's certainly a known stylistic pattern, like houndstooth or gingham, or maybe a geometric pattern like the Sierpinski triangle or the Mandelbrot set and the sourcing is good enough for that. What's not fine is the prominence we've given the fringe mysticism that's become associated with this. Melchizedek's supposed history stemming back to Egyptian and other culture is highly doubtful, as noted by sources used in this article. We should mention it, but treat it as a WP:FRINGE topic. We repeat Melchizedek's theories right in the lede as though they're scientific fact, but that's way off from what I can tell. But that is not a deletion rationale, it just needs work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we take out all the supposed history and the fringe theories, what would be left? Even the title is distinctly flaky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not take out completely, just trim significantly. We could start with Martha Bartfeld's original development of the design in the 1960s, before she fell in with the New Age crowd. We can discuss the historic appearances of the design in various cultures, minus the synthesized implied mysticism. And we can mention the New Age stuff, so long as it's confined to its own section and given due weight and appropriate framing. It's just the "this is a symbol sent by God! there can be no other explanation!" tone that needs to be gone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Martha Bartfeld is NOT a reliable source. As I pointed out in previous AfD, her coloring books are self-published. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a thing, in the end. Good arguments on both sides, but there's a notable core there. Per Ivanvector. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art history in the lead re-written as "Versions of the pattern have been used infrequently in various of the decorative arts since ancient times, apparently without any specific symbolism being attached to it." Johnbod (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and fine with the rename Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because WP:DINC. It's clearly WP:RS, and the MathWorld reference convinced me that this is an appropriate name for it. My problem with the article is, like many others have noted, the WP:UNDUE weight on new age mysticism stuff. De Guerre (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to rename/move to overlapping circles grid. I like that name. De Guerre (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The content is broadly OK, but the title gives undue weight to a coining by a single nutter. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content is broadly OR and needs chopping, but yes, if we are going to keep this then we need a notable title for it, and we don't seem to have one. It wasn't named until recently, it seems, and no other name seems to have stuck. Is there a decent precedent for creating an article where no reliably sourced name exists? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, I meant, of course subject not content. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~MOVE ~~- Are we going to have this discussion once a month?~~ to overlapping circles grid with geometric material and historical usages without focus on flower of life name. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the delete discussion from last monthThe result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 08:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)) Tom Ruen (talk 10:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that seems to be that a) the article has been deleted and recreated; b) it's full of OR and has a title sourced to exactly one, not very reliable source. The article contains some mathematics which is really about another topic altogether, which along with the not-very-good-title is causing us all difficulty in identifying what the article is about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pattern that exists without a name. A non-notable New Age guru dubbed it "Flower of Life" (WP:NEOLOGISM) and his followers push the association. It's full of synthesis and OR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@—Мандичка: Curiously, nobody disagrees with us about the synthesis, OR, and lack of a name; and we don't disagree with them that the pattern exists. We just think, however, that lack of WP:RS is grounds for deletion (doh, fails WP:GNG), whereas they think mere existence is enough. We are mandated, I think, to remove all the WP:SYNTH from the article, which will not leave a lot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A no consensus result isn't exactly a vote of confidence (even if it has the same immediate effect as a keep result). Hopefully this debate won't end the same. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my view the 'no consensus' close was a very bad close. My reading of the discussion was that it was a clear 'keep'. However, accepted practice is not to challenge 'no consensus' closes at DRV. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History: The recreation of the article earlier this year was an out-of-process end-run around DRV, but the previous AfD trumps any concern over that hiccup. The MathWorld-liness of the article is perhaps what is most keep-worthy about this piece, but I wonder whether the name "Flower of Life" has become something of a circular citation in the sense that I'm not convinced that Wikipedia itself has not had a hand in promulgating the name "Flower of Life" for this rather prosaic design. Still, we are perhaps getting to the point where we're crossing the threshold from Wikipedia being used as WP:SOAP inappropriately to having to accept that, Wikipedia having been used as WP:SOAP, the outside world has been affected enough for us to have crossed the threshold of notability. As soon as I saw the Cold Play album cover and the associated commentary I knew that things would get confusing. As for content, I would argue that the mathematical "WP:OR" some have pointed to as existing in the article isn't properly original research in the sense that our policy outlines. On the other hand, a lot of the speculation as to "history", ancient temple designs, and the spirituality of sacred geometry is probably best left marginalized per WP:PROMINENCE. I wish there was a good article to merge the mathematical content in this one to, but, alas, I cannot find one. Vesica pisces may come closest. jps (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but the math stuff is virtually stand-alone wrt the rest of the flowing prose. I wonder if User:David Eppstein could help us out with identifying a mathematics article as a merge target? (If indeed the maths stuff isn't copied from another article already...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "maths stuff", i.e. Construction section, to show the basic geometic relations included in this figure. The Metatron's cube section was moved here as a merge operation from that article which was deleted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metatron's_Cube. I also add the math connection there that I could find. My approach to Wikipedia is an inclusionist, so if people are going to create imaginary sacred geometry figures and it gets pulled into popular culture, I figure we might as well offer a small and accurate geometry lesson along the way. The only other place it might belong would be an article like seven overlapping circles grid using sources like this: [36] and [37]. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. No offence to the maths, but yes, it does look as if it had multiple origins, as you confirm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, I think, could be a way forward. Overlapping circles grid seems to me to be a more appropriate title so that we can include all iterations and constructions. Then we could properly WP:WEIGHT the New Age speculation to a subsection of that article which would be more appropriate to its actual treatment in the reliable sources literature. jps (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another usage of this circle pattern I found is in quilting is called diamond-wedding-ring, and the older square grid version was called double wedding ring, and seen at Quilt#Block_designs. I'm not saying that has anything to do with this topic, only that the quilting usage, if properly referenced on wikipedia can be cross-linked, and another reason to find another home for the circle pattern away from the flower of life naming. So as you say an article overlapping circles grid could source both the hexagonal and square circle patterns. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Most of what's left behind would be pure OR, however. I'll modify my !vote accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted a conversion for a potential move to overlapping circles grid, from material in this article. I included a new section for the square lattice variation. It obviously needs more work, but at least it properly refocuses the pattern from the Flower of life material. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to overlapping circles grid and close. The article as it stands now looks notable, but almost entirely not about sacred geometry mysticism, the subject of the old name. So I think the AfD has become moot and should be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid. I'm really glad we finally found the proper name for this thing. Problem solved. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC) IMHO, the article's content looks fairly decent now, though I think I'm still spotting some non-RS references. But it looks to me like the things that we can say about this pattern, based on the reliable sources, justify us having this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, while I think the deletion discussion was right given the weird history of previous discussions and other issues, the refocus to a better target subject, and the work put into it has justified this being kept. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A rename outcome can certainly be a legitimate result of an AfD. It saves us having to have a move discussion and since the potential target article has been created, it will have to be done by an administrator anyway. jps (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, don't rename In Geometry this is a very important pattern, and the name used professionally in the Creative Arts is "Flower of Life". Regardless of the origin of said term, it IS the name of the pattern. If the article really has some unwanted "fringe" content that is not related to geometry, you should delete that or put it in a third article, eg. "Flower of Life (Fringe)" or something to that effect. This article is called "Flower of Life (Geometry)" and as such it should be about this key pattern from Geometry. The other stuff could be put on a page of its own, or in "See Also". The geometry part is perfectly valid and the name of the article is the name actually used in real life situations, ie. professional jargon. This is a pattern so basic and so important that it forms the very basic building block, or skeleton pattern, for multiple other patterns that can be derived from it, see e.g. the page on Girih, especially the image example in the section "Construction". IMHO you will be able to ask any professional working in the Creative Arts anywhere on the globe the question "What is the F.o.L?", and the answer will be this specific geometrical pattern... Some "fringe" person disliked by some Wikipedia editors apparently has coined the term... this is new to me, but even if true we should not dismiss the message out of dislike for the messenger. The subject is fundamentally valid, and important. The name is valid too, as the other names suggested in "rename" posts above will make it impossible for professionals working in Geometry to actually find the pattern article, as you will have invented a name completely without usage. clsc (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(deleted the above, as I have changed my opinion. Will post below. Sorry about comments below that relate to now previous and deleted opinion.) clsc (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia needs is some books that are not self-published from the Creative arts fields you describe that demonstate the usage of the name. But Flower of Life or such names can redirect to a section, like overlapping circles grid#Modern_usage within the moved article. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (albeit not books) which are not self-published exist and are listed in my "Keep" statement below. -- Karl432 (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sources not connected to the origin of the term, e.g. this (a British newspaper) or this (amazon.com, department "Arts, crafts and sewing"). Especially, the latter source proves the use of the term in commerce. -- Karl432 (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold your horses, gentlemen. As for "unsourced New Age terminology", "Synthesis of sources", or "original research" I can't find any of that in the contents of the article we are discussing here. I have personally made recent edits to the article, as have others. Please consider the current article in stead of past versions - not that it's perfect, but it's probably no longer what you think it is. If you have posted above, you might want to give the article (and, perhaps the Talk page too) a fresh look, and re-evaluate. Thanks. clsc (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this now appears to be a SNOW KEEP, you are perhaps urging us all to hold the beasts which are already peacefully eating hay in their stable. Seems a suitably Christmasy note on which to CLOSE THIS AFD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely what this article needed, to be refocused to a neutral presentation of the pattern, its historical appearances and the mathematics behind it, with a tiny section mentioning the New Age philosophy. Well done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And note that I, the nominator, stated above that I think that the change in focus has meant it should be kept (with a rename, ideally). The article has changed a lot, and is now clearly appropriate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the page is now basically sound, but as I've learned more about the subject I have also found that the page title "Flower of Life" is misleading, so a rename is (still) appropriate, imho. clsc (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid, overwriting the redirect but leaving a redirect here for readers who come looking for information about it under that name, per my comment above and significant improvement to the article while this AfD was running. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid, as the page is about that topic, so of course it should bear that name. The "Flower of Life" term; if appropriate, and if noteworthy, could be mentioned in a specific (small) subsection, perhaps with an illustration. F.o.L is a distinct sub-class of the page topic, so of course it should be a subsection title, not the page title. Use F.o.L term only as referring to that specific subclass of the general pattern. Keep disambig page for readers who only know that name - redirect to renamed "overlapping circles grid" page or to F.o.L subsection if extant. clsc (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a good setting-out of the current consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename for all the reasons mentioned directly above. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and name as suggested; the present title is not adequately descriptive,and , as the nom said , is much too new-Agey for a mathematical object. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was persuaded by User:Johnbod's argument "It's a thing, in the end." What makes this a really interesting topic is that it clearly is a topic capable of meeting GNG. Yet, despite a variety of AfDs and edits to the article, it is a topic difficult to capture in writing within Wikipedia's requirements. I found a variety of references to the topic, but many seem to need to use quotation marks to refer to it as "Flower of Life," The idea of overlapping circles has been around a long time, so it is intriguing that the English language appears to have not committed to giving the topic a name (due to a perceived need to use quotation marks in "Flower of Life," instead of just flower of life. After a cursory search, the Wikipedia article seems to reflect society's non-unified view of the topic so that the Wikipedia article appears as a disjointed effort to present a cohesive article on the topic. That is not a basis for deletion. In fact, it is a strong reason to keep in hopes that Wikipedian's can assist in cohesively summarizing the body of knowledge on this topic for the benefit of society. There are no reliable sources to support naming the topic "overlapping circles grid", so please do not rename as part of this AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the resistance to the article is that it presents the topic as hard math (geometry) and then ties in theology, philosophy, and/or mythology. The source material I found is not about hard math. Instead, the topic Flower of Life is in discussed in reference to theology, philosophy, and/or mythology. Instead of the article focusing on the math aspects, the article should reflect the source material. I think if the title (e.g. "(geometry)") and the lead lessened the topic's association with hard math, there would be less resistance to the article. So long as the article leads with math and then ties in spirituality, editors will continue to list this article at AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have reached a consensus for some days now, so could we please move to a SNOW CLOSE, if indeed a week hasn't passed since we began. Thanks, everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 28 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. Biblioworm 19:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India–Nepal football rivalry[edit]

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

No sources to prove that there is an actual rivalry. There is POV issue. India-Nepal rivalry is as much a rivalry as say Maldives-Sri Lanka or something to like that. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – It might not be the biggest rivalry in football, but its the biggest one in the SAFF. See here and here. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Statistical rivalry only; the article just picks games out of Nepal national football team results from the Nepal-India game and offers no prose describing the supposed rivalry. Aspirex (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless there are reliable sources that can be found that talk in depth about this rivalry then it can't be considered as one Spiderone 09:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not covered by reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a notable rivalry as some other football matches like Australia-Japan or South Korea-Japan. Also agree with the other people and their opinions. Matt294069 is coming 04:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing GNG per WP:NRIVALRY, at least not in english sources. There is plenty of coverage of matches between the two but little in depth on the notion of a rivalry as the subject of an article. Fenix down (talk) 16:19, 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. Biblioworm 19:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Baker Strahan[edit]

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

Article that's about a living person whose notability is not apparent via Google, that's been a puff-piece for years, that's been an orphan for years, and that lacks any independent source. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for heavens sake. Unreferenced, promotional, non-notable, how in the world did we keep this here for six years? Kudos to Hoary for finding it and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that Strahan passes GNG guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 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 keep --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Bessez[edit]

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

Her teen pageant win is not good enough for an article. Is the music activity notable (not my area). Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was the runner-up in Denmark's most popular music competition. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 16:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per point 9 of WP:NMG. She placed 2nd at the Danish Melodi Grand Prix. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that WP:MUSBIO #9 Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. refers to the Dansk Melodi Grand Prix which is simply Denmark's preliminary round for the Eurovision Song Contest, which is a major music competition.

Keep. Her teen pageant win would not be enough, but her music and acting have resulted in significant coverage. Jacona (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSBIO, Dansk Melodi Grand Prix is simply Denmark's preliminary round for the Eurovision Song Contest. --Bejnar (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not an expert I'd say that national qualifiers for Eurovision count as "major music competitions" and thus WP:NMG is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 9 of WP:NMG as pointed out by Wesley Mouse! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Consensus above was clear and the non-admin relist is just timewasting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

two delete votes negates a speedy close. Insulting the judgement of editors who are not Admins is not cool. Admins make lots of errors User:Neelix Meg McGuffin and we can go on. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've already gone on and on and on this general subject. The fact that some admins make bad decisions doesn't immunize bad non-admin actions from criticism, nor should it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for pageantry and music career. WP:GNG applies. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources support a claim of notability based on the scope and breadth of her accomplishments. Alansohn (talk) 09:54, 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. Biblioworm 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Agranoff[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with the pages for other CBS correspondents. What would you suggest to make it better demonstrate notability? Hekademeia (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not notable. I'm not sure what this edit is all about but it seems to suggest the article creator has a COI of some sort. Citobun (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"this edit" was after the guy name-dropped himself on television. It was ridiculous. How is the Huffington Post not a reliable secondary source? Hekademeia (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that edit was a contribution to the encyclopedia - it looks like vandalism. Secondly the man works for Huffington Post - it is not a secondary source. Thirdly his staff biography on the website does not constitute "in-depth secondary coverage". Citobun (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to confirm the existence of his publisher, Pendant Publishing. After great effort, I ended up at a blank web page [38]. The company is based in Grand Junction, CO, but has no web presence. I have to assume it's a vanity press. Interestingly, it is the name of the publishing house from the Seinfeld show, the place where one of Elaine's boyfriends works. Elaine_Benes Anyway, not a notable author, by any stretch. LaMona (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indeppendent sources demonstarting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jankel[edit]

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

unsourced, appears to be an adverstisement —Loginnigol (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Simply can't find sufficient coverage. sst✈^(discuss) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – they are a significant manufacturer of armoured vehicles - e.g. the Metropolitan Police in London has a fleet (see this), they have a joint venture with Chrysler for the Jeep J8 (see this), and the Belgian military have just announced they are buying a fleet of 108 (this, sorry in French) - Aegoceras (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) 20:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that in this case, unless improved, WP:TNT could apply, until such time as a truly encyclopedic article could be written. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely agree that at present the article is poor and while I can't cite them, I'm sure it fails to meet Wikipedia standards. It certainly appears to have been hurridly pulled together by somebody connected to the company. That said, Jankel are a sizeable concern, and certainly prominent in defence/security as outlined by Aegoceras. I've been spending some time recently tidying up the SC Group article (a similar sized private British company), and am happy to consider doing the same to the Jankel article. I'll have a look around this weekend and see what Google turns up and if I think I can do a decent job, I'll dedicate some time to sorting it out and bringing it up to standard. As I'm quite new to Wiki and this sort of thing is very new to me..., if it's deleted before I make a decision (hopefully next week some time), can it be restored, or must I start again?UndateableOne (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @UndateableOne: If you want, you can copy the copy the current article into your sandbox, that way if it gets deleted and if you do find the needed in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources you may use it as a template and improve it there until it meets our policies.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better which this article would seriously need. Notifying tagger Crystallizedcarbon and also automobiles user Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few sources [39] but it's impossible to cite the sections, Quite honestly it'd be better off deleted and rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 08:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources, but I do not see the required in depth coverage, and in its current state the article is not valid. If no new sources are found I would recommend deleting it, but first, I would like to give a chance to the editors that recommend keeping it to find some additional in depth coverage to justify its inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to sound like a dick but editors have had a week and 4 days to find sources .... –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And? Oftentimes delete voters never even bother to look for sources. Thus this becomes one of the biggest issues with AfD's since there is way less work involved in voting delete over attempting to fix and/or save an article. AfD's have become enormous time sinks where very little gets accomplished. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the three above, I found this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. - Aegoceras (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant sources uncovered by Aegoceras. Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed by Aegoceras. As I mentioned above (but lack the skills to link directly to - sorry), I'm happy to work on the article and will start by integrating some citations in the New Year. I have pasted the current text into my Sandbox just in case deletion occurs before I get started.UndateableOne (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I beleive the sources found by Aeegoceras are sufficient to push this into notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, moving from delete, due to sources found by Aegoceras. However, the article still needs TNTing. sst✈^discuss 17:23, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article appears to have enough citations however most are dead links or don't support the claims made. Having looked for RS to fix these problems I'm having trouble finding anything to demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or GNG — Rod ^talk 08:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches apparently found nothing better than some passing mentions at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. Notifying first AfD commenter Thryduulf and tagger DAJF. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol + & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bennett (businessman).— Rod ^talk 20:08, 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) 02:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any in-depth coverage in third-party sources, it's difficult to see how this article satisfies the basic notability guidelines (WP:GNG). --DAJF (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been changed massively (by an editor with a possible COI) since the original nomination, although I still think it is valid. I don't know what the procedure is to inform others interested.— Rod ^talk 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 3 or 4 of the sources are reasonable, although mostly local coverage. --Michig (talk) 12:54, 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Infotech[edit]

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

This article's been csd-deleted a total of 7 times and keeps coming back, so I'm listing it here for community input and if it leans toward delete (again) I'd be of the mind to WP:SALT it to keep it red. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into parent company article. I don't see this passing WP:CORP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some odd behavior here. The article seems to have been created by a "farm" of SPAs. The initial author has also created Altimetrik, another corporation that doesn't seem to meet wp:corp, and SoftSol, also very poorly referenced. In any case, This looks like paid editor activity, but the customers are not getting their money's worth. This article is primarily referenced to PR sites, and does not meet criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 06:02, 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. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just One Drink[edit]

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

Issues with WP:Notability, WP:SPIP, and WP:COI. Page author has another page in AFD also for promotion of this project. JamesG5 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to have screened earlier this month at a film festival and is supposed to have an official release next year, but I can't see where there's actually any coverage out there. Screening can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee and short films are usually passed over as far as coverage goes. It's not unheard of for short films to gain coverage - Rodrigo Gudiño's The Facts in the Case of Mister Hollow is proof of that - but it's still relatively rare. I have no problem with this being created in the future if coverage does become available, but I would recommend that it go through AfC if the person creating the article has a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen Pro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I tagged this for speedy but as it was nominated once before, here we are and my searches simply found nothing better at all to suggest better notability and improvement and I'm simply not gathering how this is solidly notable from that first AfD. Notifying the only still active past users MrOllie, scope_creep, LFaraone and Walter Görlitz and also close article contributor Otis Inf. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is entirely notable and easily passes WP:GNG. It is a highly specialized piece of software, which is still well used and well respected in the industry. The article has not been updated for some time, but it is still used and gives a good description of what it is, links code generation and object-relational mapping, and describes well a complex and very expensive piece of software, at the forefront of the industry. Why is it being nominated again? I think this nomination is vexatious. If you wanted to know what the previous article AFD was about, read the previous AFD. scope_creep talk 12:38 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only independent ref currently in the article, infoq.com, is little more than a feature listing and does not clarify why the software is notable. The only source mentioned in the past afd that meets the criterea of significant independent coverage is the 'Pro LINQ Object Relational Mapping with C# 2008' book, the pages of which do not appear to be web-accessible. On its own, this single book ref is not sufficient to clearly establish notability, and the other refs are incidental mentions, blogs and a self-published book, none of which establish notability. Complexity and expense are not criteria used to determine notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:16, 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) 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Shapka[edit]

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

WP:BLP, resting entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability, of a person notable only as the leader of a fringe political party and as a non-winning candidate for political office. These are not claims of notability that satisfy WP:NPOL, and no quality sourcing is present to fulfill WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. I favor the lowest of barriers for inclusion of material about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders without regards to size or ideology on the grounds that this is material that readers reasonably expect to be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. As this subject was the head of the Natural Law Party in Alberta, a keep on those grounds. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely being a political party leader is sufficient notability to support a properly sourced article — but for a minor or fringe party especially, it can't be (and isn't) an automatic inclusion freebie that constitutes an exemption from our actual sourcing requirements, or allows the person to keep an article that relies exclusively on primary sources and passing namechecks in election results tables. If there were even just a couple of properly reliable sources that were substantively about him here, I'd have let this go — but there are zero. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or you could do a re-direct to the party. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, leader of a fringe party does not guarantee de facto notability, but a redirect would be suitable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person got under 300 votes and placed 6th in a run for a national office. The argument that we need this article to properly cover the natural law party makes no sense. That party is adequately covered by articles on that subject, and this article gives no light on the parties philosophy of goals, although it does give some evidence of its failure to generate a political base.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:52, 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 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Cocu[edit]

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

Non-notable rower. Quick google search for him only finds social media accounts and a staff list at the Melbourne University Boat Club, and this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereppy (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Cocu has won a prize from the Royal Dutch Rowing Federation in 2004, following that year's results at the Summer Olympics [40], but that was the only fact I could find that would perhaps support notability. – Editør (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close having coached an Olympic team, but WP:ATHLETE limits it to competing, not coaching. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 26 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. Biblioworm 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic income in the Middle East[edit]

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

Most of this article is duplicated in the article Basic income around the world#The Middle East. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to have a separate "main article" that's an exact duplicate of the section in the more general article; the spinoff appears to be three years old, and nothing has been added to it to make it more in-depth than the original. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely redundant.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 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 all. Biblioworm 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nosaina Pokana[edit]

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

This cricketer hasn't played First Class / List A / Twenty20 format. Hence not notable. Fenopy (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason stated above:

Fenopy (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Varies - Rao, Gauci and Pattison are a clear delete as I don't find anything other than stats/profile listing sites so there's no independent coverage to justify them meeting the GNG. Coverage for Pokana and Kapoor is limited - the one article that's cited on the article pages is about it. On balance I don't think that's the multiple sources required to meet the GNG.

Healy has a tonne of coverage - for example here, here. [ http://www.thatscricket.com/news/2014/08/25/ian-healy-s-son-tom-australia-under-19-squad-072417.html here (to an extent)], here, here and here at least. A lot of that is down to his father of course, but the coverage is focussing on him and there are decent, independent sources in there - miles better than cricket stats sites. I'd say a case could be made for keep for him.

I'd also say the same case could be made to keep Page as well - sources here, here and here for example. There don't seem as many sources as for Healy and if he fails to develop then we may want to revisit the article in a few years and question his notability per se, but there's a case that at present he meets the GNG due to there being a number of direct, reliable and independent sources which consider him as their major focus.

Which suggests that each case should be judged on merit and not just because they've not played a ~~first class~~ oops "major", cricket match, Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tendulkar's son who is covered in multiple sources had his article deleted here last year... Fenopy (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see WP:AON Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. All fail the WP:CRIN notability guideline as they have not played at first-class, List A or Twenty20 level. The Aussie players can always be recreated as and when they make appearances at a senior level, whereas the two Canadians most likely won't be playing at a senior level anytime soon, given Canada's rapid descent down the international ladder. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healy, at least, very, very clearly meets the GNG. It's not even close. To rely on a quantitative criteria when there is extraordinarily clear qualitative evidence that someone is notable as a human being is ridiculous. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly strong sources for implying notability, they all rabble on about how he hopes to replicate his fathers achievements. No different to the Arjun Tendulkar AfD. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all bar Healy, Merge/Redirect him to Ian Healy#Family, as their junior cricket performances aren't notable. The-Pope (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of them are only youth internationals, there is no attempt to confer notability in any of the articles. Seasider91 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all bar Healy and Merge/Redirect him to Ian Healy#Family per The-Pope. This is the most sensible solution. It is argued that Healy meets GNG and, given multiple sources I would agree that he does if you take a Boolean line on the matter, but his press coverage is attributable to the fame of his father and so, in his case, I believe NCRIC to be the more objective arbiter. The-Pope is spot on. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I"m convinced of that argument now - thank you both. It's Page who's now giving me more thought - the coverage there is significantly independent. I might take a go at that article later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per failure to meet WP:CRIN and/or the GNG. Healy can be mentioned in his father's article, but I wouldn't bother with a redirect. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of them (currently) meet WP:NCRIC. I suspect most, if not all of them one day will, so no issue of the biographies being recreated when they do play FC/List A in the future. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they Fail WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanda Ladoși[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable singer. Quis separabit? 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete, I cannot find sufficient reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. ssт✈^(discuss) 16:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-known in Romania about 20 years ago. Won the first prize of the most important music contest in Romania in 1988. Represented Romania at Eurovision 2004. See [41] for an in-depth article about her (from an independent, reliable source). Razvan Socol (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain basically as weak keep only if there's better archived coverage and can be improved or else delete for now as TNT and restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 which will help to expand that article, whilst also conforming with the WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG guidelines. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG. Getting the idea that this is here because the article is poorly written. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom didn't even Google her apparently... [42], [43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable singer. Passes WP:BASIC: [49], [50], [51], [52]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lanni[edit]

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

Non-notability. The article is well-referenced (which is why I didn't simply slap a speedy on it) but all the references are either simple listing about films produced of focus on John McPhail. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the fact he was nominated by both BAFTA and the Royal Television Society (Both major art instituitions in the UK) alongside his work with McPhail far exceeds the requirements for notability. ChrisGFA (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied that the person is of suitable notability in the arts industry. DrColePorter (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may be impartial here as a co writer but to dismiss a BAFTA and RTS nominee on the grounds of non notability would go against the rules of Wikipedia. TheDeadRat (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Bafta award winner, merely a contributor to a nominated film. The only award for work he is concerned with is one from the Sydney Indid film festival. Annd as mentioned above, none of the references make any substantial mention of Lanni. TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an obvious keep--just improve the references by using the correct citation format w/detailed info. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep even if reluctanty as I would honestly say drafting and userfying is better and there's not much of an article aside from a few listed awards but I suppose keep for now and renominate later if a better article has not happened. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 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 Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Cole[edit]

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

She only won a Miss Texas Teen USA title which is not enough for an article. She lost both the Miss Teen USA and the chance to be on TV, All the detail about that should be in the event article, not hers. No sources either. Delete it. Legacypac (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 16:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People do not pass notability criteria for winning teen pageants alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently nothing better to suggest fully satisfying applicable guidelines including general and models notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners. As has been mentioned, redirects are very cheap, and it is a plausible search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners as per The Bushranger. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the relist with 5 people saying delete or redirect? Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 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 redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andria Mullins[edit]

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

Normally Teen pageant winners dpn't get articles. Andria needs an award for failing to win more contests then anyone I've seen, but not a wikipedia page. She was on a reality show where she got kicked out 1st too. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winners of teen pageants at the state level are not notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners. Plausible, cheap, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners per The Bushranger. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas Teen USA#Winners The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 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 redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hendricks[edit]

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

The likely lovely Erin went to her high school and lives in her hometown. She won a teen pageant (not normally a reason for an article) and did not win some other pageants. Not much else to see here. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 16:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winners of teen pageants are not notable for that. I would say that I do not think the tone of the nomination is wise though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not intended to be disrespectful, she is simply a low profile individual where only the barest of details can be sourced. I'm emphasing how formula these articles are. I'm sure she is a nice young lady. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They really do give off the wrong vibe. When nominating for deletion, please state the facts, just the facts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. Cheap, redirects are, hm? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners per The Bushranger. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. Nothing but blogs and social media on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 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 redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Carty[edit]

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

Other then winning a teen pageant, the (I'm sure) lovely Miss Carty's biggest claim to fame is being "the sister of Austin Carty, who participated in Survivor: Exile Island and was the first member of the jury." Legacypac (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a teen pageant winner is not enough on its own to make someone notable. Things are even worse considering the claim that she was born in the 1960s is unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. A plausible redirect and redirects are cheaper than saying "redirects are cheap". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners per The Bushranger. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. About 30 Google hits, none of them usable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 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 redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 07:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkie Groat[edit]

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

Teen level pageant winners don't usually get articles, but Nikke was "Born in Upland, California and brought up in Matthews, North Carolina where she moved in second grade, Groat attended Piedmont High School in Union County, North Carolina. She belongs to the National Honor Society and National Art Honor Society and is a member of Future Business Leaders of America." which is cool I guess. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ as the nominator does not advance a rationale for deletion. (Also these "look how pitiful, haha!" 'rationales' are not the sort of thing that should be done, at all.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is anything here a claim of notability? The delete rational is pretty clear - any high school kid deserves an article if this is the threshold. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Teen level pageant winners don't usually get articles" is not a rationale for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ given a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources about her to be found, which is particularly important in a biography of a living person. The one reference cited in the article does not mention her. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Happy to go with a redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. The nomination is tacky, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Almost nothing at Google News, and a standard query returns mostly social media and splogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners. Reasonable search term, avoids recreation issues, redirects are cheaper than deletion. @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Malcolmxl5: for possible reconsideration? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; updated to redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a teen level pageant does not make someone notable, thus someone who that is their only claim to any notability is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 24 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 iss Indiana Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halley Wallace[edit]

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

Miss Indiana Teen USA winners do not get articles for just that. No live sources. No other claim to notability. Delete Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a state teen pageant is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Indiana Teen USA#Winners. Redirects are cheap. Besides, if we deleted her, the first runner-up would just take her place. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Indiana Teen USA#Winners. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Indiana Teen USA#Winners per The Bushranger and Clarityfiend. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Indiana Teen USA#Winners. Sure, I'll go along with that. I count about 50 hits on Google, and none of them are usable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 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 redirect to Miss Connecticut Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Musumeci[edit]

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

Winning Miss Connecticut Teen USA does not merit an article. Having a brother with a DJ business is not worth an article, and neither is winning a car on The Price is Right. Best line "Although Musumeci did not place (at Miss Teen USA) she had to support of her friends and family in her hometown of Hartford." (grammar error and all). Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Connecticut Teen USA#Winners. There's no significant coverage beyond a few local interest stories, which I don't think is enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut Teen USA#Winners. Now was I ninja'd or pirated in posting this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning a state teen pageant does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 24 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 Miss Arizona Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Zellers[edit]

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

Emerald won a beauty pageant when she was 14 or 15 years old. It is a little disturbing to read she placed first in the swimsuit event (who looks at little girls that way?) That is all we know, assuming someone can find any sources for these bare facts.

Miss Arizona Teen USA's don't usually get an article. Delete it for her privacy. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a teen pageant is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arizona Teen USA#Winners. As mentioned, redirects are cheap and it is a reasonably plausible search. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 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 redirect to Miss Arizona Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Vance[edit]

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

Subject won Miss Arizona Teen USA 2010, a title which in any state does not merit an article, only a spot on the winner table.

2.5 years later subject is pulled over for DUI and does a plea deal - a crime that does not merit an article.

No article+No article=No article for a low profile individual. Let's give the young lady her privacy back and delete this BLP violation without redirect. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arizona Teen USA#Winners. As it is well-sourced this is not, as the nom alledges, a BLP violation. However it is, in fact, unnecessary and non-notable trivia. However a redirect is cheap, cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass with, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pageant part of the article is sourced to a obviously self submitted 4 short paragraphs (1 of which is about the organization, not her) in the 'News from You' section of the Ahwatukee Foothills News (twice a week circulation of 28,000) sharing a page with 4th grade spellers, girls scouts visiting the local fire hall, how the "Ahwatukee Rotary Club to participate in international trip to fight polio", (like every club on the planet), a local girl graduated from University, someone made the Dean's List at University, and some boy made Eagle Scout. Since nothing else of the page would warrant a Wikipedia article, nether should this high school kid. This makes the WP:GNG claims a mockery of the AfD process. A DUI by a low profile individual is not notable even if reported on in a small town paper a few times. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[53]? Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a state teen pageant is nowhere near enought to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 24 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 Miss Colorado Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Scimeca[edit]

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

100% unsourced bio of a high school senior that won Miss Colorado Teen USA. I'd PROD Bio it bit it's too old. Generally high school level winners do not get articles. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winners of state teen pageants are not notable for that fact alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Colorado Teen USA#Winners. Redirects to a list of winners are logical, reasonable search terms, avoid "see a redlink-make it not-red" syndrome, and are, again, cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 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 merge to Citizen Khan. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavna Limbachia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Google News doesn't give any useful results. Huon (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course there's indications of notability, she has roles in two significant British TV programmes, at least one of them a starring role. PatGallacher (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Eddie 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the significant coverage in third-party sources required by WP:GNG? There's an interview, a BBC page, a half-sentence, and IMDb. That's not enough for an article, and I haven't found anything better. Huon (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was a US series that had continued for 27 episodes the main character's actors would certainly have individual entries. Furthermore Citizen Khan appears to be gathering good ratings in India and other English-speaking parts of the commonwealth many of whom will use this version of Wikipedia. Do remember that this English version of Wikipedia covers a large number of countries. Therefore if something is culturally relevant in one of those countries it should be included. Otherwise we might as well spawn off new Wikipedias for US, Canada, Australia etc. Pingu7931 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or simply redirect to Citizen Khan and that latter may actually be best as 27 episodes is somewhat enough to suggest it as there's clearly nothing for a solidly notable article here. Notifying PRODer Safiel and past AfDers Amatulic and McMatter in case they're not aware of this new AfD. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My rationale given in the previous AFD still stands. The supporters have not offered any policy-based reason to keep the article. She does not have starring roles, and I still don't see evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 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 06:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 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. Biblioworm 20:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerron Cross[edit]

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

Not notable enough - councillor, defeated parliamentary candidate, staffer to an Archbishop, but nothing that meets WP:GNG Frinton100 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 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 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because nothing here constitutes a notability claim that would grant an automatic pass under any of Wikipedia's inclusion standards — being a district councillor can satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if the article is well-sourced, but it's not a role that can confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every district councillor who exists at all if the sourcing isn't there. Of the sources here, however, two are deadlinked blogs that were never valid reliable sources in the first place, one is a still-live blog that still isn't a reliable source because it's still a blog, one is a deadlinked primary source, and one is his book's sales page on Amazon.com. There's only one reference here (#4) that counts for anything in the WP:GNG sweepstakes — but even that reference is just a blurb in a community newspaper, so it's neither substantive enough nor widely distributed enough to carry notability as an article's only source. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lost the election, his other positions are not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isidore George Beaver[edit]

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

I'm finding barely any substantial sources at all for him. The only one I did (https://www.unimelb.edu.au/culturalcollections/research/collections5/groves.pdf) find states that his partner did all the innovative work, not Beaver. I'm not seeing any evidence that he is credited with any notable buildings. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is of interest for his association with H. E. Fuller and Edmund Wright (who is truly notable in Adelaide) and for his vice-presidency of the South Australian Architects Association. Doug butler (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler:Notability is not inherited and he isn't notable merely because he worked with important people. Probably the best way to ensure keeping this article would be to identify some notable buildings that he designed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And an addition to an existing notable building probably doesn't cut it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable either. Being third in a partnership of unclear notability, or vice-president of a small local organization doesn't make him notable. --ELEKHH^T 01:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is fascinating how much harder it is to provide evidence of notability (16 references in the article at present, there were already eight when it was nominated!) for professionals on Wikipedia than sportspeople who are inherently "notable" because they once played a game in a national competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDavis (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 December 2015

@ScottDavis:If you think an article about an athlete should be deleted, feel free to nominate it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the sources are garbage. A one-line mention of routine news coverage from within his own lifetime is not evidence of notability, it's just what newspapers do. I'm going thru the sources and yet to find a single one that provides any in-depth coverage whatsoever of Beaver. I suggest any admin reviewing this discussion to actually review these sources before giving them any credit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable architect of his period; a number of his buildings have heritage significance, and while it is now demolished, he also designed the nationally significant St Moritz Ice Rink in St Kilda. Oiyarbepsy misses ScottDavis' point entirely; Beaver is abundantly more notable than thousands of sportspeople who are inherently notable under our sports guidelines, but clueless people go to town on significant people in areas they don't understand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep saying that word, but I see zero evidence that he is notable. Find an in-depth sources that is mostly about Beaver and I might change my mind, but the sources that people have added are evidence that he is not notable. You don't need to add these kinds of sources to write an article about a notable person. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Designing a nationally significant building (St Moritz deserves an article of its own long ago, surprised it hasn't got one already actually), the houses of notable people, and central public buildings in capital cities more than surpasses playing one sports game in terms of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prove it with sources, prove it with sources, prove it with sources. How many times do I need to say that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It took me five seconds in Google to establish that Beaver designed St Moritz, and the rest were already in the article. The case for notability is abundantly clear, it could always use more detail and sourcing, but I am disinclined to expand articles on the whim of someone who has no interest in the notability of the subject and is just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merely verifying a fact is a far cry from notability. I'm not looking for a source that verifies a fact, you've provided that in spades. I'm looking for a source that proves that someone considered this person important enough to right a book or a lengthy article completely about him. You can pick any architect that ever work from 1850 to today and find one-line mentions in period newspapers that confirm facts, but that does not in any way demonstrate notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - St Moritz isn't mentioned in the article because the article is far from complete, but it was an obvious declaration of importance to anyone who knows anything about Australian buildings, and one I found on Google in five seconds. And if I was dealing with someone who was actually interested in the notability of the article, rather than continually trying to delete material sourced to indisputably reliable sources to make a point, I might be so inclined to dedicate my time to adding it; alas, this is not the case. You have an interpretation of WP:GNG that is just flatly wrong and wildly out of line with actual consensus at AFD (we have millions of articles on people without books about them, and plenty without lengthy articles completely about them), and a perusal of your edit history shows that it's far from the first time you've tried to delete valid material based on wild misapplication of policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if your sources provides some detail about how it was designed and constructed, it certainly would establish notability for the building (which the building obviously has anyway). A similar sources with some similar detail about another building would establish it for Beaver. I'm particularly curious why the building opened five years after he died (not denying your facts, just curious), and the source has to at least address that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good discussion. The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can (often) find out about |importance=low| places like Wedge Island, painters like Ruth Tuck, schools like Whinham College, doctors like Mary Page Stone that you bump into in general reading but aren't in adb. Beaver wasn't Frank Lloyd Wright, but he wasn't Joe Bloggs either, and he was chosen as a partner by quite famous (in SA at least) architects who are already well treated by adb. Meanwhile, can someone help me link the .pdf that I found with Google about the (heritage listed) Toorak Bowling Club pavilion (which literally calls Beaver notable) ? Also is it OK if I move the article to Isidor George Beaver? I'm embarrassed at getting sucked into that. Doug butler (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the St. Moritz thing - I'd missed that. Hardly surprising that implementation of Beaver's design took some time. This was, after all, the time of the Great Depression. Beaver had been getting fewer jobs (notice the paucity of calls for contractors), and may even have done the work pro bono (he was after all an enthusiastic skater, had shares in the Glaciarium and may have even been sponsor of an ice hockey team).Doug butler (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was half joking, but it turned out to be true. A beautifully written, concise article on Beaver may be found here [54]. Doug butler (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Low-importance but nevertheless notable subject. The age of the subject makes it difficult to find online references of significant coverage, but there are a handful provided which do establish a GNG pass. Huge numbers of less-than-significant newspaper mentions, in the context of being the architect on a notable building. The comparison with sportspeople is apt, as even quite minor players who have played a single professional game are considered automatically notable. If there were such a thing as WP:ARCHITECT, it would probably say something like "An architect is presumed notable if they have headed the design of at least one notable building". There are at least two such buildings - Goode House and the St Moritz Rink.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As the link attributes the building to the firm Wright Reed & Beaver, that would make the firm notable, not Beaver. --ELEKHH^T 03:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:ARCHITECT now redirects to the same place as WP:ARTIST as "architect" is listed in that section of the notability criteria. Valfontis (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - intrigued by discssion above, most of which is quite unhelpful, despite that, a notable albeit low profile one, of the article, not the discussion JarrahTree 01:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence based argument is...? --ELEKHH^T 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://icelegendsaustralia.com/1stIceChampions-builders.html#Beaver is sufficient in itself. JarrahTree 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but is not that evident for me that a blog by a hockey fan is sufficiently establishing notability. --ELEKHH^T 04:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find coverage in works such as The Making of a Profession: a history of the growth and work of the architectural institutes in Australia and Building a City: 100 years of Melbourne architecture. Andrew D. (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I completely understand the nomination (In its original state, I might have nominated it as well), the further discussion and limited additional sources (particularly Andrew Davidson's above) make me lean keep. Not a high-profile architect, but certainly one by which having an article in Wikipedia is a good thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous version of the article was deleted due to lack of notability. This one has the same problem. There are plenty of references but none of them are reliable sources with significant coverage. In the revision I tagged, the first reference is the tool's developer. References 2, 3, 7, and 8 are unpublished student papers or white papers. References 4, 5, 9, and 10 give only passing mention to the subject in a list of tools or purchases. Reference 6 does not mention the subject at all. Psychonaut (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are about the software - they are all general discussions of the issue the software addresses. In looking for reviews (which could support notability), I found it on CNET, but as #35 in programming software. That basically shows that it's not notable. LaMona (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose and draft and userfy later if needed as all in all there may not be much for as much of a better article as there could be. Notifying 1st AfD commenters Ysangkok and Dialectric. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been updated. Please review before deleting article. --Mennbaji (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My review of this revision: I don't like references 3, 5, and 6 (project reports/presentations, seemingly not formally published and sometimes saying almost nothing about Understand). Reference 4 is a bit skimpy (only a couple paragraphs on the subject) but apparently reliable. References 2, and especially 1, are much more thorough in their coverage. Whether Softpedia is a reliable source for editorial reviews is debated (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52#Softpedia Linux software reviews) but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. (Never heard of Flurry and couldn't find any discussions at WP:RSN.) So in light of the new sources I will !vote a weak keep against my own nomination. Pinging User:LaMona and User:SwisterTwister in case they want to assess the new evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference has been added (currently listed as reference #2). This is a published article from Circuit Cellar and it goes more in depth into what Understand does and why it is significant.--Mennbaji (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has rescinded, !voting "weak keep" in a later comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 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. Biblioworm 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Surya College[edit]

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

Private college which most probably does not pass our WP:GNG for educational institutions. Salimfadhley (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All I could find was their Facebook page. Nothing to suggest independent accreditation or coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:ORG. I will note, however, that since I am not from Nepal, I may have a harder time finding sources from my media outlets. Does the organization have a Nepali name that we could potential search for? Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds even just one reliable source that it exists per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sainath Thotapalli[edit]

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

Frankly I wasn't sure whether to PROD or AfD as this current version seems easily that material and the best my searches found was only this, this and this so unless there's actually some archived coverage regarding the 1980s films, I simply see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:50, 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) 02:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 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 redirect to Volume 8: The Threat Is Real. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Out (Anthrax song)[edit]

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

non-notable single L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 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) 02:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 03:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep, because the topic is obviously notable. However, the article is woefully deficient and desperately needs to be improved on every level. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- how is this notable?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Volume 8: The Threat Is Real, the album on which this single appears. Individual songs are rarely notable enough for standalone articles. Position 126 on a national chart is not particularly remarkable, and my searches on Google, NewsBank, and HighBeam fail to turn up in-depth reviews about the song itself (i.e. outside of the context of the Volume 8 album). There is no indication that this subject is notable per WP:NSONGS. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 26 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) 00:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Home[edit]

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

non-notable single L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 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) 02:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 03:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS, a non-notable single. Azealia911 _talk 18:47, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the Music Back[edit]

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

non-notable single L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 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) 02:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 03:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS, a non-notable single. Azealia911 _talk 18:47, 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 move Iaal, Lebanon to this location, redirect IAAL to IANAL, and hatnote. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iaal[edit]

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

The disambiguation page only names two 'relevant' articles; however, the only truly relevant article is Iaal, Lebanon, while the other, Internet slang, never even mentions the word Iaal in the article. Therefore, this disambiguation page should be deleted as irrelevant. Lebabven (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching the term into the search box actually does pull one other term, a redirect to IANAL (which is apparently an internet term for "I am not a lawyer"). IAAL is mentioned in that article as the opposite of the phrase, i.e. "I am a lawyer". Not sure what effect this has on deletion, but the link to "internet slang" seems to be a mistake. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the entry for Internet slang. I've added entry IAAL. This probably would have been better served with deleting the wrong entry and redirecting to Iaal, Lebanon and then that uncontroversially moved to Iaal. I'm glad it wasn't in this case because it has been made into a valid page. However, if anyone thinks Iaal, Lebanon is the promary topic, then a move might still be a good idea. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid dab page; have redirected IAAL there, as there was nowhere helpful to leave a "redirect" template on the IANAL page and otherwise people typing in caps wouldn't find the Lebanon location. PamD 11:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have one entry for "Iaal" and one entry for "IAAL." Because of this, we can invoke WP:SMALLDETAILS to disambiguate the two topics. Therefore, I recommend Iaal, Lebanon be renamed Iaal to satisfy WP:NCPLACE and IAAL should be redirected to IANAL and tagged as {{R from antonym}}. Then add hatnotes to the top of both pages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That would be the most appropriate and sensible move.--Lebabven (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, to move from Iaal, Lebanon here. per Tavix / WP:TWODABS / etc . Widefox; talk 20:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the opinion of Tavix above.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

I agree with Tavix. That would be the most appropriate and sensible move.--Lebabven (talk) 03:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendrakumar Anayath[edit]

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

Appears to fail ~~WP:NPROF~~WP:PROF. Mdann52 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you mean WP:PROF? smileguy91^{talk - contribs}

Indeed I do - good catch! Mdann52 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 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) 02:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- article is entirely promotional, so it's even hard to figure out on what particular basis to begin to look for RS for notability. Was not able to find citations for the major sources. Seems like a good WP:TNT argument. (forgot to sign date is wrong: -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prison consultant[edit]

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

I'm listing this on behalf of 209.211.131.181 (talk · contribs) who has made the following nomination. Although I don't view problem users as a reason to delete an article, I happen to agree that the topic is of unclear notability, most of the content being in the form of 'formerly imprisoned commentators'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This form of consulting definitely exists; however, it's of unclear notability, since most of the real coverage is related to one person, Bernard Madoff, hiring a prison consultant - a fact which can be covered adequately in Madoff's article. The other sources in the article, from reliable sources, are slim "subject exists" articles at best.

While the preceding might not be a reason for deletion on its own, this article has a history of much larger problems. I have removed a lengthy "Practitioners" section from the article, but the article history is fully visible, and I advise anyone considering keeping this article to review it. The section contained, variously, a policy-violating directory of named consultants, promotional content, copyright violations, and violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - to wit, claims about consultants' prison experience without acceptable sourcing. Often it was all of that in the same content. This content has been repeatedly removed or redacted over a span of years, and repeatedly readded by a stream of single-purpose accounts who are probably undertaking undisclosed editing. The content of that currently-removed section is unacceptable, but history shows that it will be readded yet again in the future, festering until someone else removes it yet again and the cycle continues.

The best option is to get rid of the article that attracts this bad editing. Material about Madoff can be merged to the Madoff article, and any other content able to be rescued could be added to Incarceration in the United States if that is desirable. The article itself should be deleted. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the subject is notable enough. The content needs editing, though. Zezen (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep You are required to have an account to nominate articles for deletion as some understanding of the process is required - see WP:BEFORE. We don't delete articles because they have some problems - see WP:IMPERFECT. And we don't delete articles when we plan to use the content else where - see WP:MAD. The existing sources such as the NYT clearly demonstrate notability and there are plenty more out there such as Good Time. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly this is an erroneous nomination as already noted by Andrew. In addition as already said, we don't delete articles because they have some issues. And when the article is questioned on grounds of notability, there are plenty of coverage in reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Jim Carter 05:22, 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research. It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 08:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - @Zhaofeng Li: Looks like you already CSD tagged the article. It's one or the other, you don't have to do both, just letting you know. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @CatcherStorm: It was User:333-blue who CSD'd that. I was just about to remove this AfD. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 08:42, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It's here now, hopefully an admin will close it as a delete quickly, since the article creator continues to screw up the tags at the article's beginning. Clearly an example of WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this can't be speedied, then it's pure WP:OR, and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Actually it's a how-to essay invented by the editor and traced to Twitter. Enough said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research. Better suited to a personal website or blog than an encyclopedia (WP:ALTERNATIVE). clpo13_(talk) 22:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Almost a G10. Lots of promotion, and nothing of any encyclopaedic value. Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Schargorodsky[edit]

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

Frankly I wasn't sure how to act with this one because one way or another, it is speedy, PROD and AfD material somehow and the article is not considerably comprehensible and with my searches only finding this and this but this will need familiar attention either way so here we are at AfD. Notifying past tagger MrX. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have applied some tidying and added a couple of references to the subject being a part-winner of a Golden Cob B-Movie award, but neither they nor the quoted encomium by the subject's work colleague Jess Franco, nor the local Malaga press coverage of the same film's making and opening (in the External Links) seem to me to meet WP:FILMMAKER. Clearly the subject is working in his chosen industry but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:58, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven De Lelie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was split between speedying and PRODing until I actually noticed the first AfD from 2006 so I confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable actor with only one major acting role and my searches found nothing convincingly better.". Although it seems he's had a longtime recurring role with Familie, I found nothing to suggest a better article. Notifying MichaelQSchmidt and Onel5969 who ask to be notified for these subjects and also notifying the only still active users Scope creep and JzG. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, English is my first and only language. I cannot read these which could potentially show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I am personally not a fan of soap operas, many folks are. He's appeared in over 350 episodes over a 13 year period of the longest-running soap opera. While I can't ascertain how large a role "Bert" is, the character does have the last name of the main protagonist family around which the show is built. That, with the number of appearances gives the role significance. His recurring role on the long-running series Lili & Marleen, is also significant. He's also the director of Theater aan de Stroom (formerly Raamtheater), see here. And then there is this, this (which is a pretty unique way for theater groups to fund themselves), and this. And that's just on the first page of News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Sahmaunt[edit]

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

Sun Dance performed at the time of her birth, fact that she attended an historical church, receipt of land (same as all Kiowas), and her belief in education, don't warrant a standalone article. ~~Whether or not notable, recommend redirection to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. List might mention that 400 people attended her birthday.~~ Apparently non-notable. EEng (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query for @EEng: The article's infobox refers to the subject as a "Kiowa leader." Is there any indication that she was some sort of tribal elder, council member or elected officeholder? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be sourced to anything. I searched all the sources and external links for the string lead and found only "In addition to being a full-blood member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, she was a women's leader in the United Methodist Church." EEng (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Do we have a list for oldest Native Americans and/or old First Nations members? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was well-featured in the media and was notable due to other reasons than longevity as well. 930310 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

@930310: Could you link to a few examples of the significant coverage of the subject which you believe establishes the subject's notability for reasons other than longevity? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She lived to 101 which is not notable. She may have been the oldest person in her community of 12,000 people when she died, but so what? The article calls her a Leader with no substantiation, maybe confusing "Elder" for leader, but Elder just means she was older then the young people. Women's leader in the local church is not a reason for an article. Not seeing anything worth keeping. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 101? Oh for crikey's sake, I didn't even notice that. EEng (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While age does added to her notability it appears she is covered by reliable sources regarding her presence in the community. I found these sources here [55] and this source [56]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In one source there's a sentence about her and one about her children, and in the other she's a parenthetical suspension in the middle of a sentence. That's significant coverage? EEng (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, gentlemen, neither of the linked references above constitute anything like "significant coverage." Yes, the subject was a Gold Star mother (one of her sons died during World War II; yes, she was recognized by the Methodist church as the Oklahoma Indian Mother of the Year. In both cases, she received approximately one sentence of coverage. That's less than what the local Kiwanis Club gets in the local newspaper when the Kiwanians elect their new officers. These debates really point out all of the flaws inherent in trying to build centenarians (and supercentenarians) into something inherently notable for purposes of stand-alone Wikipedia articles. These are perfectly lovely men and women who, by virtue of good genes and good fortune, have lived to a ripe old age. The overwhelming majority of them have lived perfectly ordinary lives, and there really is no encyclopedic content beyond (maybe) those who temporarily held the Guinness record for oldest living person on the planet, all of which could be handled perfectly well in various list articles (name, birth date, birth place, date of death, place of death) broken down by nationality. The proponents of these articles, including those apparently associated with the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), need to find another outlet for this content because half or more of these articles are getting merged to a list or deleted outright. If the general notability guidelines were strictly applied -- without the overheated advocacy of proponents -- then even more would be merged or deleted. Wikipedia is not a website-hosting service for non-notable topics, but various other user-contributed "wiki" websites and hosting services do exist; perhaps GRG participants should consider starting one of their own to host this content, so that extended bios for every verifiable person who reaches 100 or 110 years of age may be recognized without having to artificially inflate the subjects into something most of them clearly are not: "notable" per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG folk have already adopted the approach you recommend. See here. Perhaps the hobbyists who once made common cause with the GRG folk would consider joining them. David in DC (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. WP:FANCRUFT. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent today in a nursing home talking with people, and it reinforced the idea that living a long time does not equal notable. Living a really long time is not an achievement in the normal sense, but more like a punishment for most people. Being really old generally sucks and comes with pain, loss of freedom, family, senses, mobility, mental agility and so much more. Unlike the person who works hard and dreams of getting to the Olympics/top of Business/President/famous actor etc no one in the care home is thinking "if I can just breath longer then Fred I'll be the oldest person in South Dakota or born the former Russian Empire or the oldest person living in the USA to have immigrated from Ireland. I can't wait for Grace and Wilma to die so I can seize the title of oldest woman in wherever and get my Wikipedia article finally."

The people writing WOP articles are basically tracking old people for sport (they call it "research") by creating articles, titles and succession boxes without the consent or knowledge of the generally private people they track and profile. Age is one of many superlatives that people can achieve by living - fat, skinny, short, tall, smart, stupid, married most times, most children, and so on. Take super fat people who also get human interest story type media attention occasionally. Would it be acceptable to write bios, lists and succession boxes for the 100 fattest people born in Germany or Spain with sublists by province, men, and women, plus continental and world superlists? Should we track hundreds of fat people with succession lists for dozens of "fattest titles in place x or area y", tracking their names, exact weights, birth and death dates and locations on Wikipedia? Would anyone suggest we pull together lists of all people over an arbitrary 400 lbs who ever lived or sought to verify their weight?

Then there is the question of "verified". If some random person came to most Wikipedia editors and asked for their birth certificate, passport, marriage license, and other personal ID most thinking people who tell them to go away and maybe call the cops. Is it really alright to seek personal documents from these people, or their often quite old and maybe incapacitated children? While some might want to cooperate, many must not. Then there are all the people who don't get identified as being super old by the WOP trackers. So all these made up titles are extremely suspect given the evident gaps in available data.

As for notability based on the kind of sources trotted out - it is almost impossible to live over 100 years and never get a mention in the news or online somewhere. So a handful of mentions online does not impress me much. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research is the same thing as exercising some sport? Every professional geriatric who does this for their job, will feel personally attacked by that assumption. So please be more carefull with your words next time. Thank you in advance Petervermaelen (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You begin with "I spent today in a nursing home talking with people, and it reinforced the idea that living a long time does not equal notability" and end it with "it is almost impossible to live over 100 years and never get a mention in the news or online somewhere"... So, what you're telling me is that people who live an unusually long time get mentioned in the news, which means (guess what) that longevity clearly DOES confer notability. You defeated your own argument. That whole essay is an exercise in original research. You have no idea how the GRG collect documents. Neither the GRG nor GWR claim that their "oldest person" titles are definitive, only the oldest known, verified person. There's no reason to call them suspect. You could call boxing titles made up because Joe down the pub says he could knock them out. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per logical reasons listed above. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Baudelaire[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was going to suggest redirect to A Series of Unfortunate Events#Characters but this is a pretty huge and popular series (books, movies, videogames etc). The character is thus discussed as expected in pop culture.[57] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just reading the article for A Series of Unfortunate Events clearly indicates the novels are very notable, with positive reception from critics, having noted to have helped children to cope with loss after the September 11 attacks. It's also been compared to Harry Potter, and Harry (the character) has his own Wikipedia article, and I believe therefore this novel character should have her own as well. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:20, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Baudelaire[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same reason as your AfD nomination for Violet Baudelaire. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:22, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Baudelaire[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:23, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Baudelaire[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:24, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count Olaf[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close of all AfD's made by this person regarding the A Series of Unfortunate Events Characters as soon as possible - The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:23, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 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 procedural keep. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge_and_retitle. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Poe[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:00, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baudelaire family[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:13, 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 procedural close. I'm striking my vote and procedurally closing these. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC) *Keep. It's relatively standard to have a list page for various characters in a series, especially if the series is very well known and has a large cast. Now the bigger question is whether or not any of the major characters merit their own page or should be merged into this article, which I'll have to research first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79 —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read from somewhere that notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but list articles are somewhat different beasts. As stated above, it's a fairly normal occurrence for long running notable series to have a list page for the characters, especially if the series is adapted to different formats like film, games, and so on. In this case it makes more sense for Wikipedia to have one list for all of the characters as opposed to trying to list all of this on the main page or whittling it down to only 4-5 characters. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have a history of making spurious AfD nominations and that you recently did this in September for Matrix related articles. There is serious question as to whether or not the individual characters or the page for the Baudelaire family merit their own pages, however the final answer to this is not outright deletion but rather a merge discussion - which is not the purpose of AfD. Now while I've voted here, I'm actually going to close these and open a merge discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 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 procedural keep. A look at the nominator's past edits shows that they made a similar round of AfD nominations back in September and they were specifically warned on their talk page that AfD is a last resort, only if merging is not an option. Per current conventions, list pages for popular, notable series like ASoUE with multiple characters are allowable and are considered to pass notability guidelines for list pages. I don't see where the AfD for the list page would close any other way other than a "keep", so that leaves merging as an option. As for the individual pages, there is merit in the idea that these characters do not have independent notability outside of the series, however the first option here should have been to suggest a merge - an option that the nominator should already have been fully aware of - especially since the talk page for this list article shows that several other characters have been merged into the list page, which suggests that like the prior AfDs, the nominator may not have done their due research while nominating these articles for deletion. AfD is not a way to WP:CLEANUP articles and merging is a part of cleanup. I'm closing this and opening up a merge discussion at Talk:List_of_supporting_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events_characters#Merge_and_retitle. This comment is going to be placed on all of the AfDs, so forgive me for making it a bit general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esmé Squalor[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT. No real world coverage. DJ Autagirl (talk) 07:03, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 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. Biblioworm 20:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shabbos[edit]

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

I came across this via a speedy deletion, but there's enough here to pass notability guidelines as far as A7 goes. When it comes to overall notability per WP:NPERFORMER, I'm not as certain about this. He has some mentions here and there of his performances, but not really any that would firmly show that he passed notability guidelines.

If anyone can enough sources to firmly show notability, I'm open to withdrawing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found mentions but nothing in depth. I'll also change to support if anyone can find sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find adequate support for the article. reddogsix (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article - yeah, the notability is not as strong as I originally thought. I could maybe cite his connections with Mike Wagner and the members of Moshiach Oi!, or the interview with Arutz Sheva, but ultimately it probably doesn't meet WP: BAND.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, I have no problem with you userfying the content so it doesn't completely disappear. This one is frustrating since he does seem to be notable within his niche/genre, but he's not really getting a lot of coverage overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 24 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. Already G12'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smile HD[edit]

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

The article is about a viral video. Currently, the article is entirely original research with no sources. It clearly is a viral video, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources to establish notability or to source the content. I am One of Many (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable "viral" video (and WTF? might I add) —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N and WP:CITE Blue Riband► 12:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N/WP:CITE failure, along with the usual grammatical nightmare. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyright violation of http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smile-hd Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nero's Day at Disneyland[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 meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 07:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, clearly nothing to even suggest minimally better notability and improvement, and I would've frankly simply PRODed, hoping no one removed it or else we would've been exactly here at AfD. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 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 Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boxfresh[edit]

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

Piotrus's PROD was removed by Michig so here we are at AfD and the best my searches found were only passing mentions with "Boxfresh British fashion label Roger Wade" at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam so hardly much to suggest even a minimally better notable and improvable article. Also notifying the only still active tagger Rayman60. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PROD was not valid. There's enough coverage around if you look for it. Article improvement is a better alternative to bringing every article with issues to AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious notability, and obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. Laziness is not valid reasons for deletion. Cavarrone 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Cavarrone the firm's name is in two of the RS titles. 009o9 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG. I would have to agree with Michig that article improvement is a better alternative to bringing every article with issues to AfD. It safe energy and time. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Refs are cast iron, not sure what we're discussing. Snow keep. Szzuk (talk) 21:49, 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. Biblioworm 20:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Williams (DJ)[edit]

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

I came across this article as an A7 and the claims in the article are just enough for it to squeak by speedy criteria but do not seem to hold up over the larger requirements per WP:NBIO. Williams does work for iHeartRadio and I can see where he's mentioned in some news sources, but I can't really see where he's independently notable outside of the company. I'd redirect, but I don't think that it'd be a viable redirect in this case, since there's no mention of him in the main company article nor is there really a good place to insert him, as we don't list every employee of a company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl179, thanks for the explanation so that we can maybe address it. We are digging up more articles for Chris Williams. He has been a DJ for over a decade on some very big radio stations. Hopefully some past articles will help with it. I'll see about getting him included on the iHeart page as well. Thanks again! Kazmandu2 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up on adding him to the iHeart page. The problem with doing something like that is that Wikipedia is not an employee listing for everyone that has worked for a company - especially if the company is especially large. Usually the only ones who get added are the top-top people, like the CEO, that run the entire company. Williams is in charge of a branch of the company but this doesn't automatically mean that he should be listed on the main article. The general rule of thumb is that after the CEO, the others should only be added if they're notable enough for their own articles. Right now your main concern should be trying to find coverage that focuses specifically on Williams and shows how he's independently notable. Also, I get the strong impression that you have a conflict of interest given the tone of some of your articles like this one. Per COI, you must disclose any conflict of interest you may have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know him at all, no COI. And, he isn't just an employee of a company, like, a secretary. He was the DJ, the voice of the company, has a large fanbase, etc... I think that the reason for Wikipedia is to record the important people involved with a known organization and he is definitely that. Wouldn't that be notable enough even as just an individual. His position in the company at iHeart is just focusing on his recent job history. Let me know your thoughts. I would like to see his page stand. Kazmandu2 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue this on your user talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, iHeartMusic has many DJs. In order to show notability for him as a performer or in any format, you need to show coverage in independent and reliable sources. Brief mentions where he is making a statement on behalf of the company does not count, which seems to be the majority of hits that I received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks adequate support to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Williams is mentioned on the 99x radio station page if that helps? 2602:30A:2CF0:90:492F:4F51:A343:4DBF (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Kazmandu2, then please be aware that this is considered to be block evasion. I've blocked that user because it was very, very obvious that they were a paid editor (because their edits were very promotional and they'd uploaded a logo for the marketing company at WC as their own work, fair use) and were likely related to a marketing company they'd tried to write about at WP:AfC. They also had issues with their account potentially being a shared account. If you are a seperate editor, please be aware that the same requirements of WP:COI remain and you MUST disclose any conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPI has been opened here. This is pretty much a "what not to do if you own a PR company" situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is marginal; the most significant mention is in a product article.[58]. In the presence of heavy COI editing, it is appropriate to interpret the notability criteria strictly. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the Morning: A Collection of New Poems[edit]

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

Book of childrens' poetry that doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. While the article has a link showing that the book won an asward, there's nothing that convinces me the aware itself is notable, and therefore I don't believe the "award-winning" criteria of WP:NBOOK is met. Mikeblas (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Charles Causley and it may be best to simply delete unless anyone wants this saved for future uses, as my searches simply found nothing better and I'm not currently seeing how this can become a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah McManners[edit]

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

The article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BLP. The subject is an alternative medicine practitioner in the UK, and sources cited seem promotional and do not cover the subject in depth. A Google search turned up no additional reliable sources to establish notability or bio info. Delta13C (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to even suggest a minimally better notable article and my searches only found a few links here and there, nothing outstandingly better. Notifying DGG for familiar area insight. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and not notable " first female medical doctor in the UK to become a registered naturopath" is notnotability. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources included, notability has not been demonstrated against WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to distinguish her from other doctors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OC Beaulieu[edit]

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

Football team which seems to have only participated in low levels of the national league in Algeria. There are no sources. After some Google and Google news searches, I can only find some passing mentions. It seems to fail wp:NCORP. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has taken part in a National competition as per [59] and [60].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in the national Cup competition; notable - but needs improving. Giant Snowman 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned, seems notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 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. WP:SNOW. There's a clear consensus that the subject is notable and an article is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Looking at it it does need some work, but that's normal editing. Kudos to the article creator/nom for being bold and willing to take the lumps from the slings and arrows of outraged AfDers with his article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Tracy (professor)[edit]

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

This is an advisory listing. I created this article and I think it ought to exist. However, let's get the question decided now before other people put more work into this, and so we can decide if "James Tracy" ought to be a disambiguation page or not. (In all likelihood people are searching the Wikipedia for info on this guy right now since he's in the news.)

There's two cases against this article existing. One being that he's not notable per WP:BIO. I think there's fairly extensive coverage of him that goes into a bit a depth about who he is (not personally, but professionally) in various notable newspapers etc.

Another case against is WP:BLP1E. But, his (in-proccess) firing is not the only event for which he's notable; for instance he's covered in HuffPost for his views on the Boston Marathon bombing; he's been around awhile and has been covered for awhile, granted at a pretty low level of interest (but not nothing). Of course, when the action against him ends -- either by his being fired or being retained -- there will be another flurry of news about him.

Keep, as nom. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the thing is, what drove me to write the article, if we don't have an article on this dude, we have a little bit of a problem with the currently existing article James Tracy. For right now, I added {{For|the Sandy Hook truther|James Tracy (professor)}} to the top. After all, that James Tracy is quite obscure and James Tracy (rugby union) even more so, so 90%+ of people coming to James Tracy are looking for the professor, certainly at the current time. What are we going to tell them? "For the Sandy Hook truther, see.... er, we don't have that article"? (The article previously had a note "He is not related to the James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University who rose to fame disputing the official story of the Sandy Hook Massacre" as the second sentence of the lede, which is very unsatisfactory IMO.) Let's face the fact that this guy is semi-famous. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for nominating your own article to AfD. That's a new one. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be rare but not unheard of. I've done it a couple other times. AfD is not supposed to be adversarial but consultative (although there is also plenty of value in the give-and-take of advocacy and counter-advocacy). I take it you don't have a vote on the merits of the issue? Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. I thought about creating this myself yesterday, he's been floating around since Sandy Hook and it the subject of another round of attention. If the obscure James Tracy should exist, let's make that page a disamb. page and move him to something like James Tracy (political activist), that will shield him better. If the Sandy Hook James Tracy article is deemed unwarranted, it should be redirected to a subsection of an article discussing his harebrained lunacy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- brave choice to nominate@Herostratus:; it may be close to a BLP1E, but the information is notable, separate from the event coverage, well sourced, and does not merit more than a quick link in the main Sandy Hook article, but should be kept here. I'm fine with the move to Political Theorist; and think that the main James Tracy link should probably be a disambiguation page. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headlines spanning roughly three years meets the "sustained coverage" test of WP:PERP and is enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just read two articles about him this morning before I got online. The extended period of coverage and the number of sources put him well past the minimum notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- since a Keep seems likely ("score" is 5-0 at this point, not even the nominator wants it deleted) and since he's in the news so a lot of people are probably looking here for info on him right now (not that we have much), I went ahead and recast James Tracy as a disambig. If the article is deleted, this can be undone. Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, keep, what the hell note. THIS Tracy is James F. Tracy, article should be moved to this name. GangofOne (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The controversy over this man's beliefs has just reached the national level. I myself sought information about him here on Wikipedia, hoping that in the footnotes of the article I might find more sources: and that is exactly what happened. Thus this article serves a useful purpose, and is justified. Chillowack (talk) 06:05, 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 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyBoyxo[edit]

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

Unfortuantely, despite my best efforts, and searches using both her real name and her YouTube username, the only sources I could find are from the website Raannt (which appears to be a source used for some articles about YouTube personalities). Searching her real name resulted mostly in false positives about different people with the same name. While I did find an IMDb page, the filmography suggests she doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not even marginally better notable. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per User:SwisterTwister and nominator User:Narutolovehinata5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abovethestorm (talk • contribs) 04:00, 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. Biblioworm 20:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eldon McIntyre[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. Unlike the other batch I've nominated so far today, this one can't even claim the "unsuccessful candidate in a leadership convention" for why this would ever have been created — he was just an unsuccessful MLA and MP candidate, with nothing else here to confer notability at all, and isn't supported by a single reliable source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Graham (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failed candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 24 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) 00:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Duraku School[edit]

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

No notability. The article is about an elementary school in Tirana, one out of the many. No content or references to justify the article. Mondiad (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. The article makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, and most of what I'm seeing on a search is social media pages and local events. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 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 keep. Closing early as there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted. An WP:RM discussion to move the dab page and then the Enrique Marquez (US citizen) page looks to be the way forward if desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Márquez[edit]

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

This DAB currently covers 4 people, only two of which uses the page name. It is holding up a page move for Enrique Marquez (US citizen) who is way more famous then Enrique Macaya Márquez. CSD declined by an Admin with the reason it is a DAB page (I don't understand that reason). Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want an AFD. You want either a WP:RM, or an RFC on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you reverted my effort to turn this into a redirect [61] I guess we do need an AfD after all. Delete the DAB, turn into a redirect to the guy charged with terrorism. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just delete the dab page, it is being used. We could move it to Enrique Márquez (disambiguation), but since people disagree, you need to discuss the move at the talk page and get a consensus. Or (less optimally, IMHO, but an option) we could make Enrique Marquez (with no á) the page for the guy in California, with a hatnote to the dab page (with the á). Also needing discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to learn about Spanish naming customs; "Márquez" is not the middle name of Enrique Márquez Jaramillo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in Mexico City for a while, I am well aware of Spanish naming customs. In theory people can go by their given and first family name only, but Wikipedia is using their whole name. At RfD we just went through a bunch of these and deleted all that used that form.

I prefer to see the California guy at Enrique Marquez with not accent per say CNN [62] especially since he lives in the US where the accents are usually dropped. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're using their whole name mainly because it offers the most natural and culturally sensitive way to disambiguate two Spanish-named people with the same WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't weaken either of their claims to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the common form at all, any more than it would if they'd been dabbed as "Enrique Márquez (poet)" and "Enrique Márquez (footballer)". Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the four people on this list have stronger claims to PRIMARYTOPIC for this name than the US citizen cum alleged terrorist does, because they've both been far more famous and notable for far longer. So keeping the dab page at the plain title is the correct solution here; for all his current newsiness, the new guy has not trumpcarded the others for the plain title as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A guy who has been in the news for five minutes and whose own article is up for AfD does not warrant being the primary topic. WWGB (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It looks like this is mostly a misunderstanding. I don't think there can really be any doubt that such a disambiguation page should exist somewhere. If moving it is desired, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. --BDD (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If this needs to be changed, it needs to be moved to Enrique Márquez (disambiguation), but as mentioned by WWGB and Bearcat this is a serious case of WP:RECENTISM at work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
Keep - valid DAB; there's also a Venezuelan politician with the name —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dab lists three people who may be referred to by the same name, and none of whom are clearly the primary topic. That's what dabs are for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest an admin snow close this so an RM discussion can be had. I've commented so I can't close, but it seems like a snow close is appropriate, followed by a move discussion at Talk:Enrique Márquez. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Debate was closed as a snow keep on the deletion of the dab page and incorrect venue for a requested move. However Legacypac has since correctly noted that WP:AFD does make reference to renaming as an AfD option. The full discusion is here. Interestingly their point is contradicted by WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:GD but supported as a less common outcome at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Other_Outcomes. Perhaps our policy pages need a copyedit.

There does not appear to be a dispute over the concept of a snow keep on deletion, and an assessment of debate also leans toward a snow keep of the current dab as primary topic. But it remains (potentially) possible that a rename might win support in further discussion. So as the path of least bureaucratic resistance I've reopened the AfD at Legacypac's request, on the basis that they are seeking an article rename and not deletion. Apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the to and fro.-- Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already a rename discussion happening at Talk:Enrique Marquez (US citizen) for that article, keeping this open to review a possible rename of the dab page (the only reason for which is so the article could be moved here) unnecessarily complicates matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an appropriate dab page for the individuals listed. Alansohn (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a perfectly valid dab page. PamD 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this name, no one person is the primary topic. Also, since an á is hard to type on some keyboards, I think we should maintain Enrique Marquez as a redirect to this page. And if we're really going to have a rename discussion here, then I assume we won't see a WP:RM opened up immediately after this AFD is closed. For anyone interested, see discussion at Talk:Enrique Marquez (US citizen) for a discussion of where to move that page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most likely outcome on the 3rd listing will be making it a redirect to a section of the article on the San Bernadino shooting. Which will still leave us with articles on three people under this name, and make the disambiguation page needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person who started this deletion request also seems to not understand Spanish names. For example Enrique Marquez Jaramillo is normally known as just Enrique Marquez. With people in Spanish-speaking countries like Mexico, they generally have two last names (unless their father refused to acknowledge them, I knew someone from Venezuela who was in that situation but I digress) and the first of the two last names is the one they will go by primarily. In many sources they will be listed only by that last name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 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 merge to Nashua, New Hampshire. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua, NH Fire Rescue[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 01:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information. I'm new but nobody is given a clear reason why its nomitated for deletation. No one contacted me asking for help etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdnh85 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify: There is a chance that notability could be demonstrated, so I'd say we move it to the userspace or draftspace until that time. –Fredddie ™ 02:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see notability here. Nashua is a fairly small city, <90k. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Nashua, New Hampshire, which presently has no mention of its fire department. This would improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as mentioned as this is usual with local town fire departments. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 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. Biblioworm 20:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ho Chee Kong[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable physician. The standard is WP:PROF, which goes primarily by citations. The citation frequency in Google Scholar is : 42, 42, 41,29, 23, 20, 13., with only 11 publications having received 11 or more citations. This is altogether below the level of notability for a notable research in medical science. No major positions: associate professor, not professor, committee member not chair, member of societies, not elected fellow or officer, (Fellow of RSSurgeons is a professional title, not an honour, editorial board and peer reviewer, not ed. in chief. The references are almost entirely mere notices. the claim of being the only person to have passed a particular specialty exam in one country for a foreign certification is not a claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found no signs of better notability and improvement with my best search results here (local passing mention) and here (several) and it's worth noting I would've nominated this myself but I asked DGG for familiar insight whether Christopher Ho Chee Kong was notable or not. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So... what you are saying is that there is notability AND reliable sources?! The more I read about notability and reliable sources, the more illogical they become! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete -- citations are not there for a US or European doctor, but perhaps an expert on Malaysian medicine could report whether these numbers are significant coverage in Malaysian medicine. But without such evidence, I don't see it as notable by WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for notability under WP:PROF, it's been the practice here that the standard of notability as an expert is international. For other topics, such as many in sports or poloitics , it's otherwise & we go to some extent country by country.. For yet other, such as literature, where coverage is very poor for certain countries, we apply flexile standards. But science is international. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about science and medicine; I believe that the standard shouldn't change for literature and other humanities where publications are still generally done in the local language, but happy to defer to your greater experience on science AfDs. Changing Weak Delete to full Delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted, but I would like to nuance the claim "associate professor, not professor" made above. It is true that he holds the title associate professor, but this does not mean that he is not a professor in the American and most common sense of the term. The Malaysian (and Australian, New Zealand etc) title professor is used much more restrictively than in the US. The title associate professor in those countries corresponds to reader in the UK, and is one step above an American associate professor, at roughly the same level as an American full professor. After your PhD, you typically start out at the lecturer level (=US assistant professor), then get promoted to senior lecturer (=US associate professor), then to associate professor (named reader in most Commonwealth countries), and finally perhaps to the professor rank, which is a higher rank than the usual full professor rank in eg the US. So in regard to rank, he should be treated as similar to a normal full professor in the US. Regards, Najwa Yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa Yong (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the significance is gradually changing in most countries more to the US system. But in any case, since being a full professor is not formally a requirement or sufficient proof in WP:PROF, it's not of key importance. What's equally important is the quality of the university. Though not a formal requirement, I am fairly sure that nobody having a position of full professor in a US or Canadian major research university has failed to pass afd in the last 5 or 6 years , except in cases where there is prejudice against a certain field--interestingly, often the traditionally female-majority fields of Education, nutrition, etc. , or where there is prejudice due to the person holding an unconventional opinion. Najwa Yong (talk · contribs), it is unfortunately possible that people with equivalent positions in other systems may not have passed afd due to our lack of understanding, even in first-rate research universities. But in any even the research record here doesn't meet WP:PROF, and that's the actually determining factor. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted, or whether being a full professor in the US sense is enough. But Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia (as well as Australia and New Zealand) consistently use an entirely different rank system than the US, where associate professor is the title of a rank one step higher than its US namesake. Also, if the institution is of importance, I'd like to add that the National University of Malaysia, where Christopher Ho Chee Kong works, is one of Malaysia's five main research universities and ranks comparatively high in international rankings. Regards, Najwa Yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa Yong (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 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.