Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Aina[edit]

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

This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). First PROD but it was removed without explanation. Qed237 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable as per WP:NFOOTBALL. Quis separabit? 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 08:25, 21 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) 16:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Presently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Just a bit WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:35, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opeyemi Enoch[edit]

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

This mathematician fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF. He created a bit of a media splash a few weeks ago when the Nigerian newspapers reported that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis and won the million-dollar Millennium Prize, based only on a talk abstract at a non-prestigious conference, and the international media then picked up the story. These reports were either substance-free (no proof has emerged, and what can be found online under his name inspires no confidence) or outright falsehoods (he has not won the Millennium Prize, and cannot even be considered eligible for winning the prize until publishing a proof). There is little to say about him other than this non-story. If we have an article, we are compelled by WP:NPOV to point out that he has no proof and that some have called the story a hoax, but I think per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP it's better to have no article at all than to have a negative (but accurate) article about a non-public-figure. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with deletion of this article. The subject's fame is because of the BBC world service article which incorrectly said he'd been awarded the Clay prize for the Riemann Hypothesis. The article was amended to explain the mistake, as were most of the mainstream press articles which mistakenly followed World Service's lead. The existing article fails WP:BLP in an unfair way to the article's subject. Crucially, no reputable source has accused him of any wrongdoing, it is clearly an innocent mistake. WP:BLP must be taken seriously as it affects peoples' lives.Createangelos (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant guidelines and too much WP:RECENTISM in the article. It is unlikely to be suitable for a fully fleshed out BLP based on news articles about the Riemann controversy which give very little if any biographical detail about Enoch himself. The current version of the article does not even have his date of birth, which would be available if he met WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E, the available coverage of the subject consists entirely of news reports concerning his purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis, most of which is highly inaccurate (for instance this source, cited in the article, claims that three Millennium problems have been solved previously, the actual figure is one). The subject is only covered in the context of this event, the subject is likely to remain low profile otherwise and a non-proof of the Riemann hypothesis is not a significant event. Obviously actually solving one of the Millennium prize problems would confer notability, as the result would be very influential in the relevant fields and would generate lasting coverage of the subject in the manner of Grigori Perelman or Andrew Wiles, but that's not going to happen here. Hut 8.5 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources on the subject (as required by WP:GNG), and no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Sławomir
Biały 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all above Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought of nominating this article for deletion, the very first day it was created but I decided to wait a bit to confirm the authenticity of the claim that he won the Millennium Prize. I found this claim to be untrue, hence the need to consider deletion per WP:BLP1E. I will also like to mention that he fails our criteria on WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Alizad[edit]

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

Searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at Highbeam and browsers including also links for an apparently unrelated professor Ali Akbar Alizad. It's also worth noting this was started by the subject himself apparently and not only was this PRODded shortly after (which is why we're here at AfD), I was going to PROD until I noticed it, here's my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable enough as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions and I should also note I also found links for an unrelated professor with this name.". SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1][2][3][4][5][6] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently he is a known figure in the Iranian theater, nevertheless the article requires further revision and referencing. Arashtitan talk 20:40, 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 Blind Guardian. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Underworld[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced, fails WP:NALBUMS, it's only a short sentence, an infobox and a tracklist. Less than half the bands are apparently notable. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As it has 4 notable bands and is a tribute album to Blind Guardian it can be merged into the Blind Guardian article.81.131.211.59 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, a non-notable release. Azealia911 _talk 18:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Michael Ekanem[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. I can't find that evidence of notability. She is only doing her job to make ends meet. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources that would make this notable. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is only known for two things: 1.) styling notable personalities and 2.) being nominated for the “Stylist of the Year" award, neither of which confirms significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding several mentions of her in news outlets as a "celebrity stylist," but only passing mentions of her as the stylist of more notable celebrities. If there were a bit more information on her career or life, I could see an argument for keeping. Fuzchia (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of the adequate notability. Arashtitan 20:51, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimsnero Goldsmith[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly even much here to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently he is not notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Arashtitan talk 20:45, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This Google search shows a couple brief mentions (likely from press releases) in very minor newspapers, a Natural News mention, and nothing else besides some off-topic articles. Box Office Mojo shows no theatrical release. Rotten Tomatoes [7] knows of no reviews.

And to note, it's not that there aren't movies on similar subject, that clearly are notable: Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and Forks Over Knives, say, both have widespread reviews and coverage. This does not, that, and that alone, is why I'm nominating it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage, such as through the Google Books results. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is significant coverage in reliable sources; those don't appear to be reliable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of sufficient reliable independent sources to allow an NPOV article. The "documentary" promotes a dangerously misguided approach to managing diabetes, which has, as far as I can see, zero credible scientific support. To cover this without robust sources on the validity of the claims made, and content noting that the entire idea of following a raw food diet in place of diabetes medication, is batshit insane, dangerous and wrong. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes medical claims, but lacks references which satisfy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). A few articles based on press releases fall far short of the required level of sourcing when claims are made that doing thus and such will reverse diabetes. Edison (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NF. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for helping promote advocacy of a medically unsound idea that is not notable in and of itself. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 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 by Bbb23, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. E. Arikoro[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisation[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nomination say, it's a dictionary definition. This could conceivably be turned into a redirect to the relevant Wiktionary article. It doesn't seem like we have a master list of medical jargon. Too bad, because that would be great redirection target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Ligue Régional I[edit]

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

A season specific article for a league that is way below the professional level in Algeria.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither of these two nominated seasons are notable, lacking significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Given their non-professional standing there is nothing to save them at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). As GiantSnowman said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Ligue Régional I: you might want to bundle those related articles into this AFD, they are also non-notable. That didn't happen, but they are here now. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of GNG, the league itself is notable as it appears clubs are eligible for a national cup competition but but no indication of GNG to justify a season article, particularly when there is no article for the vast majority of the participants. Fenix down (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Not a top-flight league, thus failing WP:NSEASONS. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:30, 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Sports Promotion Society[edit]

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

Allegedly G11, but I think it could be salvaged...after we determine if the article should stay. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only for now as I haven't formed much commentary yet but I will say this because the Japanese Wiki has considerable information and sources so this will surely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no clear-cut evidence that this article has been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable, third-party evaluation sources, so I think it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have to admit I cannot see a good reason to keep this if users judge whether the article meets the "WP:GROUP" or not just on the basis of the Japanese wiki which has multiple issue.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 13:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think this article should be salvaged because the contents have been significantly improved and increased with new considerable information from independent, reliable, third-party evaluation sources.--Husa (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked sources attached to the article in Japanese Wikipedia and I couldn't find any sources that meet criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Husa-san, avobe all please read WP:SPIP, WP:NOTADVERTISING. If you and your friends will provide identifying reliable sources that have been the subject of significant coverage, I'll reconsider the matter. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking into the articles attached to ISPS Japanese Wikipedia (jp:国際スポーツ振興協会) and English Wikipedia, I have found that the following sources evidently meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a number of independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles and specialized magazines etc.

"Foxes foursome and new naming sponsor for Open". Queenstown, New Zealand: Mountain Scene. November 12, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
"公益財団法人東京都体育協会加盟競技団体等一覧表" (PDF) (in Japanese). Tokyo. 2013-03-01. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
"続・アカスリ半田劇場3" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 3]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). August 13, 2014.
"Olympics-Father of blind golf pushing for Paralympic place". Reuters. 2012-06-29. Retrieved 2014-06-14.
"続・アカスリ半田劇場2" [Zoku Akasuri Handa Theater 2]. Sports Nippon (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 20, 2014.
"16カ国参加スポーツ平和サミット開幕" [World Sports Values Summit for Peace Opens - Participants from 16 Nations]. Daily Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大" 公益社団法人　日本プロゴルフ協会 [World Sports Values Summit for Peace in Tokyo is Held – The Power of Sports is Infinite]. PGA News (in Japanese). Tokyo, Japan: Professional Golfers’Association of Japan. July 19, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"Mpumalanga Black Aces proud of ISPS kit deal". Kick Off. July 31, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"ポールターにマスターズ覇者も! ISPSハンダグローバルカップ記者発表会開催" [ISPS Handa Global Cup of the press conference held]. ALBA (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). July 1, 2015. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"ISPS Handa and LET sign new agreement". Golf Monthly (Time Inc. (UK) Ltd.). December 1, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf". PGA European Tour. September 11, 2013.
"ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. ParGolf (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan: Pargolf & Company). September 11, 2013.
"ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに" [ISPS Handa becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf]. Golf Digest (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 11, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
"ISPS HANDA becomes title sponsor of World Cup of Golf 2013". Sankei Sports (in Japanese) (Tokyo, Japan). September 12, 2013.

There is no obvious evidence that the above listed sources do not meet the criteria of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. ISPS has launched ISPS Handa Global Cup, one of the highest-rated tournament in Japan, and also organizes ISPS Handa World Cup of Golf, one of the most renowned golf event in the world. Since Infinite0694-san and Takabeg-san are Japanese users who seem not to know a lot about golf, they have disregarded independent, reliable third-party evaluation sources such as golf magazines. Husa-san is a Japanese user who is quite knowledgeable of golf and disabled golf (blind golf). Additionally, Google search will provide more news such as [8]. I understand the original reason for the request of delete was the advertising description uploaded by two supporters, User talk: IMGGolf15 and User talk:143.223.9.249. Now that, however, the great majority of such advertising description has already been deleted, resulting in being encyclopedic enough to be kept. In view of the fact that the original reason for delete has already disappeared, there cannot be seen any necessity to continue the consideration. 創造院 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources overall fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Sponsorship deal announcements are generally trivial coverage, and there is absolutely no coverage of ISPS Handa outside the context of these sponsorship deals. The only reason I voted for Keep is a number of reputable sources do give single-paragraph background on ISPS Handa, but the need for such points to the utter lack of WP:RS in other sources. The entire article was written with a heavy WP:PROMOTION slant and without serious revision to the article. I expect it to remain eligible for another AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 16:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. No reason for deletion. Deletion should be a last resort! There cannot be seen any advertising or other spam in the article, which has many independent, reliable and third-party sources such as Reuters [9], Kick Off, Japanese newspaper, and so on. Its contents are entirely encyclopedic. ぽてから (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first so-called in-depth source from the above list that I picked to look at (ISPSハンダがワールドカップのタイトルスポンサーに of 2013/09/11) was a short, possibly slightly rewritten, Press Release from ISPS. The second one ("スポーツ平和サミット東京大会が開催-ｽﾎﾟｰﾂの力は無限大") was a short report on a ISPS sponsored conference, with no coverage of ISPS. These sorts of articles do not meet the in-depth coverage standards of WP:ORG. Undoubtedly the Japanese Wikipedia has their own distinct standards. --Bejnar (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Japan may repeatedly demonstrate rock bottom standards in the use of citations, but in this particular case ISPS Handa is covered by the Daily Telegraph [10], Boston Herald [11], the PGA [12], and the LPGA [13]. There is a European Tour article which actually references Haruhisa Handa by name and provides a short biography as well [14]. The article edges towards WP:PROMO but there is enough in the way of WP:RS to justify its continued existence. Jun Kayama 05:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources you just mentioned do not cover the ISPS, they mention it in passing since it sponsored the sporting event that is being covered. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With reservations. [15] and [16] both cover achievements. It's not just pure sponsorship mentioned but canvassing for the Paralympics and activism for disabled golfers. There is barely enough for WP:ORGDEPTH but it is there. Haruhisa Handa certainly does not get a pass on WP:BIO for his non-golf related philanthropy, the majority of the sources listed by 創造院 are subpar, and the quality of the article leaves much to be desired (Husa left reference to a blond medal in the text, which is atrocious) but with a lot of elbow grease this article can be fixed. Jun Kayama 07:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After going through the article with a blowtorch and removing the more outrageous nonsense (i.e. Premia League and dubious claims) I am convinced that this article was generated with WP:PROMOTION in mind. However there's enough mention in WP:RS to give it a chance at life provided the more over-the-top laudatory nonsense is excised (Japanese editors: What makes sense to you in Japanese text is often nonsensical in English, especially when you fail utterly to provide WP:RS). If this AfD is relisted and this article doesn't undergo substantive improvement in quality, I'm voting for Deletion. Jun Kayama 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the sake of any other beneficial comments overall, I hope this will be relisted another time. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the above. The article definitely needs some love though. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:19, 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. Sandstein 14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Carroll[edit]

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

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

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

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

Lacks notabilty. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notability independent of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After 16 pages of Google search results, I could not find anything beyond a trivial interview. Notability is not inherited etc. Ceosad (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply instead of redirecting as there's unlikely anything for a better independent article. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject is widely discussed in Steven Kurutz's book (See the LA Times and NPR articles in the Ref list), and has media coverage for his song writing and performances, as well as an award.RS456 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — RS456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This guy won the Billboard Songwriting Music Awards 2013,Also won the Akademia Music Award for Best Rock.He is the lead vocalist of the band (see)sticky fingers. Jaljogcyber (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Jaljogcyber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notable i.a. as a symbol for the field of tribute singers, detained in the book "Like a rolling stone". The poor quality of the article shouldn't affect this, sometimes internet visibility can be deceptive. Doctorlaszlo (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Doctorlaszlo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not true, long-standing contributor to German Wikipedia [17] Doctorlaszlo (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing? Your first edit there was December 9, and you have 89 edits. Your edits to Fiverr show that you are aware of the problems with undisclosed WP:COI edits, so please don't take it personally if we are skeptical over a bunch of new accounts rushing in to save an obscure, recently created promotional article about a minor musician. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Glen is Clearly notable and meets with all the guidelines of Encyclopedia, Sticky Fingers (tribute band) existing wikipedia page also brags about the notability. see published album on itunes ^[1] Charlie.rodricks (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and turn to a redirect to Sticky Fingers (tribute band). Although that article also has notability issues, the sources are almost entirely about the band, not specifically about this person. Having an album on iTunes and winning an award of questionable notability (Akademia Music Award) do not demonstrate notability (see WP:ENT). The book is a lot closer, but it's still about the band, not the individual, and unless there are much better sources out there, this should covered there, not here. Grayfell (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Like a rolling stone

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This perst....

Keep The subject is notable and contributors should improve the article for next level. This is my first entry in deletion discussion. I find the subject notable as it has it's appearance in Los Angeles Times and CBS News.Therefore the tone should be improved in order to make it non promotional and as per wikipedia guidelines.Kellyburstone (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times mention is in a review of a book, which is only partly about the band, of which Carroll is only one member. The book may be notable. The band may also, possibly, be notable, but how is Carroll notable? See WP:NOTINHERITED. Where is he mentioned by CBS News? Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. du Lac, J. Freedom (2007-06-25). "Anyone Hear an Echo?; Fakefest, Where the Pretenders (Not the Real Ones) Come to Rock". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-12-28. (subscription required)
  The article notes:
  "I bring joy to people who otherwise couldn't afford to see the Stones," says Glen Carroll, the band's Mick Jagger doppelganger.
  ...
  Carroll is an interesting case study among rock-and-roll tribute actors. Never mind that he looks the part (right down the pouty lips and handsome wrinkles), or that he moves and sings like Jagger, nailing the singer's preeny poses and transatlantic bray. It's that he seems to be living somebody else's rock-and-roll lifestyle. He guzzles beer and smokes where no smoking is allowed and hits on just about every woman he encounters. He also talks himself up as a man of wealth and taste. Something about Sticky Fingers being paid as much as $10,000, though that kind of payday usually only comes overseas, Carroll says.
  "I have a house on the water in Florida," he says. "I have a Mercedes convertible that's paid for. I have a gold Presidential Rolex. I have women to die for from one end of the country to the next -- girls you just wouldn't believe." Later, he says: "It's sex, drugs and rock-and-roll." Is he joking? Acting for the sake of the notebook? Drunk?
  In his previous life, Carroll says, he was a military pilot. He's in his mid-40s now and says he's attending law school. But this rock- and-roll thing: He likes it. "I live for this," he says. "I do this because I see a beautiful woman smiling at me when I'm onstage, and it's . . . "
2. Conan, Neal (2008-04-22). "'Like a Rolling Stone' an Ode to Tribute Bands". NPR. Archived from the original on 2015-12-28. Retrieved 2015-12-28.
  The article quotes from Steven Kurutz's book Like a Rolling Stone, which was published by Broadway Books according to this review in The New York Times and this review in Kirkus Reviews:
  When Glen Carroll travels for work, he takes a pair of black stage pants, a studded belt, and a few shirts, usually in splashy colors like bright red or banana yellow. If he wants to make a more noticeable impression, he might take something flashier, like a cape fashioned from an American flag and a British flag tied together, or a T-shirt imprinted with the Greek omega symbol and paired with a silk scarf, or white football pants with blue knee pads and Capezio dance shoes — an outfit very similar, as it happens, to the one Mick Jagger wore on the Rolling Stones' 1981 tour. For Glen, verisimilitude in dress is part of the job. As the singer of Sticky Fingers, which bills itself as "the leading international Rolling Stones tribute show," he is a kind of rock star proxy, a substitute Mick. And considering that the Rolling Stones tour only once every few years, and that Sticky Fingers has toured every year for the past eighteen years, it's likely that he has sung "Start Me Up," and "Brown Sugar," and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" more times than Mick Jagger himself.
  Glen is slim and snake-hipped, with heavy-lidded eyes and a prominent, almost coltish mouth. At forty-seven, he resembles a slightly younger Mick Jagger — the Jagger of, say, Steel Wheels — and wears his brown hair in the same style: short in front, longer and feathery on the sides. Offstage, he favors blue jeans, a blazer, and scuffed loafers, or a T-shirt and motorcycle boots. At all times, he wears a gold Rolex "President" watch. In person, he has a sociable nature and a roguish charm and comes across like the kind of guy you might encounter late at night in a barroom, jive-talking one of the waitresses. As a bandleader, however, he is mercurial and governs by mood. He once threatened to fire the rhythm guitarist because his hair had grown beyond appropriate Ron Wood length. On the other hand, when he's having a good time, and particularly when he's been drinking, he will climb behind the drum kit, to the frustration of more authentic-minded band members. "Who ever heard of Mick Jagger playing the drums?" the drummer once remarked, exasperated. Glen is equally contradictory in appraising his own talents, swinging between modesty and extreme boastfulness. "I know what it's like to walk in Mick's shoes — with lift supports, mind you," he once told me. He has also told me, "If you want me to go out and front a band, I'll do it as good as maybe ten other guys in the world can do it."
  That a book provided significant biographical material about Glen Carroll strongly establishes that he is notable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glen Carroll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (WP:MUSICBIO) says:
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries, [except for trivial coverage or non-independent material]
Glen Carroll received significant coverage in The Washington Post. He received significant coverage in the Broadway Books–published book Like a Rolling Stone. He clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO. It does not matter whether the sources cover him in the context of the band he founded, Sticky Fingers (tribute band). It matters only that the sources cover him in substantial detail and are independent of him.
There is enough material specifically about Glen Carroll in the reliable sources to justify a separate article about him.
Cunard (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Carroll contains plenty of reliably sourced material about the subject and the band. There is no reason to delete the article's history if it is redirected to Sticky Fingers (tribute band) because some of the material can be merged. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His being the main focus of author Steven Kurutz's 220 page band biography[18] and inclusion in the additional references I just added[19] (there's more, I just didn't have time to get to them), the topic is WP:GNG qualified. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:03, 29 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 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMD K12[edit]

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

Topic about a future concept where lack of information lies; should not exist yet. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shortage of information is not a valid reason for deletion. This has been announced for over a year and there are sources to speak to its existence, thus notability. A lack of information with which to build content is regretted, but is likely to be a temporary and improving shortage as development proceeds. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shortage of information is exactly why this is not notable. If there were more information, namely the ability to test the chip, then independent researchers could provide information that could appear in secondary sources. The general notability guidelines specifically say: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. There can be not significant coverage without detail. --Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It is fair to say that all the factually information here is from AMD, since the chip has not been released, hence no independence. Also, Wikipedia is not in the predicting business. "There is many a slip twixt the lip and the cup." Again FN1 & FN2 sources appear to be from press releases. Scott Wasson's piece (FN4) at least brings in some analysis. But as he said in 2014, As always, everything depends on the specifics. AMD has to deliver these products, and they have to perform well in order to matter. That is a pretty suscinct statement that notability can only occur later, hence WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once we have more solid information, we can recreate the page. This could probably be redirected somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, it's not worth fighting over this. We can come back to this later if it turns out to be vaporware. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough reliable source coverage for this stub article and to satisfy WP:GNG. Stub articles are common in Wikipedia and there's no guideline or policy that I know of, that supports deleting properly sourced stub articles. -- intgr [talk] 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Apollo 11 was notable even before it reached the moon. This is notable within its field and adequately sourced. Thparkth (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AnandTech and The Tech Report are RS for computer hardware topics. I see sufficient coverage from a quick Google search. sst✈^discuss 11:07, 27 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, shenanigans with the nominator aside. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Sabir[edit]

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

This is a vanity article of Non notable writer, part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:BIO's standards. Hassan Rebell (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, after googling in Swedish, and digging up some passing mentions and videos I found out that this man is relatively active in various Kurdish culture activities. Not like that alone justifies any notability. It is possible that some sources are able to prove his notability, but that terrorist makes all searches difficult. However, I am not convinced. Ceosad (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- his poetry is held by all the major US institutions that collect poetry in Kurdish. Admittedly, that's few (about 8) but he's represented in all of them. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - US institutions holds all of the collected poetry. per WP:GNG---BabbaQ (talk) 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 keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Voyage[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage under either the name "Terminal Voyage" or "Starquest" at Google/Google News/Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam. Any coverage appears to be from unreliable blogs. /wia🎄/tlk 15:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add the results of the Google Books search. There is a one-paragraph blurb in The Sci-Fi Movie Guide about the film, but I do not feel this is sufficient to meet notability guidelines. /wia🎄/tlk 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cheesy-looking Russian language review site using the unfortunate name B-Movies appears to have staff offering editorial oversite and hundreds of reviews specifically of B Movies.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Hey MichaelQSchmidt, I'm having trouble determining if that link indicates editorial oversight. Some of the names look like they could indicate it, but others (like this one and this one) link to pages about people who've been dead for many years, in some cases predating the Internet. The thing is that I'm relying on Google Translate here, so I could easily be wrong. Thanks for your work here by the way; I'll try to go through the alts below later today and see what turns up. /wia🎄/tlk 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the film has had multiple non-English releases under different names, I am expanding my own WP:BEFORE... specially as it is unlikely (though possible) that something directed by Rick Jacobson, editied by John Gilbert, and distributed by Roger Corman received no coverage. That said, I'll be checking some alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my finding sources. Turns out the title Terminal Voyage is poorly searchable, but under its TV release title of Star Quest (lots more false hits) I found a quite decent review in New York Daily News and will be looking for more under that title. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Nice find. You are awesome. /wiae /tlk 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Schmidt and additional book sources such as The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope by Joe Kane or Creature Features: The Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Movie Guide by John Stanley. More searchable under the title "Star Quest" so moving to this name could be appropriate. Cavarrone 08:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(@Cavarrone: I had thought to do as appropriate just that after the AFD closes)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per nom, given the lack of coverage. WP:USUAL may apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Giami[edit]

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

Can't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (having previously nominated this for speedy deletion). The ref added by an IP shows that the US state of Georgia passed a resolution "recognizing and commending African Leadership Magazine and Dr. Ken Giami, editor-in-chief, on their inaugural international business forum; and for other purposes". That seems to me to be a pretty big deal and sufficient indication of notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardOSmith: Among other people and things the state of Georgia has recognized and commended are Georgia State Patrol Post 19; the Forest Park Teen Council; health inspector David Brake; Monica Poole, Hancock Central High School's 2012 STAR Teacher; and Deja Regine Davis, a teenager who completed a standard 12-step Christian high school program. Local resolutions are meaningless for notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comment. I am at best neutral on the matter. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese can you kindly write what exactly is wrong with the article? Or suggest a way to improve it? You mentioned the notability clause and references have been added for verification... You also cited lack of relevant or reliable sources and those have been added as well. You stayed that the state of Georgia "Local" recognition is meaningless and other recognitions have been cited such as the award of an honorary doctorate by the Abbey college London... Up until you mentioned socks I did not know that existed on Wikipedia being a world class encyclopedia, however I stand corrected. And you seem like an expert so I'm seeking your opinion as I sought the opinions of others where my actions are now reffered to as canvassing.. What can I do to improve the article @Roscelese in your expert opinion?Bomabenjy2 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

I not an SPA - I am new to Wikipedia and I just needed clarification. However I will allow the due processes to be followed and whatever decisions are reached would be respected. I just thought the page was worthy to be created on WikipediaBomabenjy2 (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this suggests even minimally better notability and improvement, TNT at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* The conferment of honorary citizenship by the state of Georgia is a notable recognition as stated here the recognition was due to his roles in promoting trade development between Africa and ..... http://africanleadership.co.uk/about/advisory-board/

He was also commended for consistently working to bridge the trade and cultural gap between Africa and the United States of America at a different forum by US Governor Martin O'Malley and the Maryland Secretary of State, Mr John P. McDonough..... http://leadership.ng/news/366600/us-governor-martin-omalley-commends-african-leadership-magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernice83 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Bernice83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

Comment. Closer will no doubt note the large number of obvious socks/SPAs. I'll pursue it at SPI if it rises to the level of a real problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see one SPA. Am I accused of being a sockpuppet? RichardOSmith (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're fine. There are a bunch of socks on the article and its talk page and I didn't notice that they weren't also commenting here. Sorry about that! (Although, note mt response to you up above.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I think your response to mine above is valid; I wanted to investigate a bit further before commenting. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and you predicted the arrival of the SPAs and possible socks correctly! RichardOSmith (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* @Roscelese The Ken Giami article has been edited with references since you nominated it for deletion under notability clause. It has been referenced accordingly with verifiable facts by different users and according to Wikipedia deletion criteria, it does not violate any of the clauses listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomabenjy2 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Bomabenjy2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bomabenjy2.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 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) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne Palestine[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Chevvin (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the contrary, he appears to be notable.[20][21][22][23][24][25] --Hegvald (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Hegvald are enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets GNG per sources provided by Hegvald —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources available, some of which are included in the article already. — sparklism ^hey! 20:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article is about a notable figure in the beat movement. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:43, 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 (NAC) The argument that the subject has inherent notability because of the senior civil service position he holds is convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Banaru Abubakar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thIbrahimmb (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)e list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a permanent secretary in Nigeria is equivalent to a permanent secretary in the United Kingdom then he's probably notable, given that's a very senior civil service position (the highest rank in the civil service, in fact). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ditto a permanent secretary by status and context in Nigeria is same as that of British Government (highest civil service rank). ‎Seems the person is also of native traditional institution and recently deceased, notable to me Ibrahimmb (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)ibrahimmb[reply]

*Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per comments 197.211.52.25 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Ibrahimmb[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrosthep's points. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "He's probably notable" is not enough without the sources to back it up for a BLP. JMHamo (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Necrothesp: a major civil servant passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable per our long-standing consensus. I never noticed earlier that he was a former permanent secretary. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:45, 29 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 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAGA (pop band)[edit]

Thank you for advice, I will refresh page with more detailed information and active links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagafan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doing some copy editing here and the more I looked the fewer good refs that appeared to exist. I am no expert on Asian languages but those refs that I can translate and/or understand seem to give glancing refs or promises of great things yet to come. I can't see anything that hints at notability. Rather the whole thing hints at paid promotional editing to get a page here. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of the current coverage seems sufficiently convincing, unless better Japanese coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Noen of the links establish that the group is notable.Peachywink (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this passes WP:BAND. sst✈^discuss 11:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moving this to User:3family6/Helvete (journal) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helvete (journal)[edit]

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

Non-notable, relatively new journal. A handful of articles/blogposts, some of which mentioning the journal in passing, are listed in the article but otherwise there are no independent sources. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Changing my vote to userfy as creator. WP:NJournals is an essay. Before creating this article, I looked for the notability criteria for academic journals, and could not find any guidelines listed (which I now know is because NJournals is an essay, not a guideline). However, I was able to find the notability standards for academic books, which state the following: "...most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." They then give some thresholds of notability criteria, of which the following the Helvete article meets: Cited by academic publications; influential in its specialty area. Below I will list the other sources that cite this journal:

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] (twice in this one)
[30]
[31]
[32]

Note that these citations I found through Google Scholar, and it might not be possible to search within some articles in the links I've given above.

That's seven citations to a barely four-year-old journal which has released only two issues so far, in a highly specialized, esoteric-leaning sub-sub-field. In addition to those seven citations, it has also seen an article from it featured on Medievalists.net, and has received significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and a brief mention in a different reliable source, and another brief mention in yet another reliable source (all four of these examples I had not encountered before now, and I will work to include these in the article). So, my contention is that while this journal may not have much significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a highly specialized journal does not need such coverage. While WP:NJournal says that it does need general notability coverage, this is an essay, and thus WP:TEXTBOOK, which is a guideline reflecting community consensus, holds more weight. Going from impact within a field, this journal is highly notable. I encountered it yesterday incidental to other research, and as I looked into it I was surprised at the impact, which is what led me to create the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NJournals is indeed an essay that was designed to make it easier for academic journals to become notable. It has been used in AfDs of academic journals for years now, without much opposition. But if you don't want to follow it, I'm fine with going with GNG (this is not a book, so the book guideline is not applicable, although it is quite obvious that this doesn't meet that guideline either). The number of citations that this journal has garnered (perhaps a dozen, if we assume that you missed perhaps a few besides the 7 that you listed) is, quite frankly, rather pathetic, even for a young journal. The link to Medievalists.net is about a specific article and barely mentions the journal itself. What you call "significant coverage" is just a mention in an interview with an editor, that for the most part is about other subjects. And the brief mentions are indeed just that, in-passing brief mentions. This fails NJournals on all counts and, even if we ignore that because it is an essay, doesn't even come close to meeting GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, using WP:NJournals, this article would satisfy criterion 2, and probably criterion a as well. So, using that metric, it does qualify. As for GNG, yes, it does not pass. But there already is a discrepancy between GNG and WP:TEXTBOOK. So, if it is decided that this article meets WP:TEXTBOOK, but is deleted because of GNG, then I think that this whole guideline needs to be re-examined. I think it is kind of silly to hold academic journals to a higher thresh-hold (in terms of independent coverage) than academic books, which is why I argue that WP:TEXTBOOK is the closest guideline applicable in this situation, with respect to the NJournals essay, which is basically the same as WP:TEXTBOOK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm sorry, but a paltry seven cites is not "frequently cited by other reliable sources" (NJournals#2) and as I have shown above, it is not "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" (NJournals#1). It's not a textbook either, so TEXTBOOKS doesn't apply. Even if TEXTBOOKS did apply, this is a clear fail: this journal is not published by a reputed academic press, it is not "widely cited", it is not translated, there are no reliable sources establishing that it is considered to be influential in its specialty area, and it is not taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. All that is left is GNG and, as you say, that fails, too. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven citations might be a lot, or very, very little, depending on the discipline, and I will let other editors, including yourself, judge. My argument is that this journal, along with two or three academic books, virtually IS the field. This is a brand-new field (black metal theory) that emerged in the very late 2000s into the present. Metal studies as a whole is not a large field, and I was surprised that citations to this journal were found outside the narrow field of metal studies. Within metal studies, it is influential, and within black metal theory, it is one of a small handful of literature. I admit that I've never created an article on a journal before. I only did so for this publication because, through curiosity, I looked into it when I found it, and was surprised to find mention of it anywhere at all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the community does agree that this article should be deleted, I'd like to request userfication instead of deletion, as, in my research for this article and subsequent AfD, it looks as though Niall Scott or Amelia Ishmael, or both, may be notable, and the Hideous Gnosis symposium certainly is notable per GNG, and the content of this article could be included in those articles and other related black metal theory articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the routine standard of WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNAL is suppose to be an easy standard to pass and much more permissive than the usual standards, and this article fails that also. Even if this article were kept the text in the article does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for what content Wikipedia presents. This is WP:OR, and not a summary of what has already been published. This could be userfied if someone wanted to reconsider the scope of this and rewrite it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the arguments from WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. I submit that I was completely unfamiliar with creating articles about journals when I made this article, and followed only WP:TEXTBOOK, since WP:NJOURNAL isn't listed among the notability standards, and per Randykitty's rationale above, I can see how it wouldn't meet WP:TEXTBOOK either. I think the only real merit that this article has for keeping it is that it was the first heavy metal music-dedicated journal, predating the much more notable Metal Music Studies. However, I don't understand what in the article is original research, except maybe the disciplines list for what the journal covers. Everything else has citations, albeit many to first-party sources, which isn't unacceptable if the article does not rely unduly on them for notability support.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my keep vote and requesting userfication instead, where I will integrate the information about this journal into some more notable subjects, specifically Niall Scott, the International Society for Metal Music Studies, and maybe Amelia Ishmael.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy only if needed as I would've even said this article looks rather notable and acceptable for now but any further better improvement would be welcome of course. SwisterTwister talk 08:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister: I don't know how much improvement can be on the article in the recent future. More might emerge after a few year, but right now, the content can't really be developed much, as I was pretty exhaustive in the research for this journal once it was nominated for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, per the author's request. I am sympathetic to the challenges faced by journals that publish within arcane sub-sub-sub-fields and rarely receive citations outside their specialized field. These journals may be well-known to academics within that sub-field, yet the journals may receive no more than a dozen citations every few years. Nevertheless, this journal fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above, as it's the author's request. Not notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beech[edit]

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

I do not think this biography meets the criteria for in inclusion in Wikipedia. The guidelines WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR are relevant here.

In particular, I question the references given to support the notability of this person. I count at least five that do not mention the subject of this article.

@Dctheatrefollower, Bwayfan2001, 12345hbot, Roh9876h, Linecrosser42, Yomomma47, Soonerorlater101, Soonerorlater101, Dream Catching, JoinUs341995ChildrenWillListen, Letitgooo, and PhantomBroadway: you appear to be in Wikipedia jargon "Single purpose accounts" dedicatated to writing about the subject of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this one is interesting because it seems notable and acceptable at first but my searches instantly found no better coverage and no IMDb at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 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. No valid deletion reason proposed by the nominator (who is banned anyways). (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yathartha Pictures[edit]

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

~~The news sources talk mostly about the videos uploaded. Anyway let other editors take decision on this. The Avengers 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – enough significant coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. What else can third-party sources talk about a Youtube channel other than their videos? sst✈^(discuss) 13:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lyzanxia[edit]

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

PROD removed by Michig and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable all in all perhaps as my searches actually found mostly passing mentions including as examples of bands their studio recorded with. WP:TNT at best if ever more acceptable.". There's nothing to suggest obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I mentioned when I deprodded it, there's a bio and review at Allmusic and a review from Blabbermouth which were easily found and none of which are passing mentions, and there are a few other brief things online (French newspapers, MTV, etc.). Metal bands often have more coverage in print sources than online, so there may well be more out there. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 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 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrington (photographer)[edit]

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

If it wasn't for the removed PROD from February 2011, I would've kept my added PROD with which I said: "Questionably notable and improvable article for a photographer for which I only found passing mentions at Books and browsers, nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability which this article would need to be kept.". Notifying the only still noticeably active past user Hoary. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Most relevant sources I found are WP:SPS. sst✈^discuss 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister , Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 27 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 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Rhode Island Teen USA[edit]

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

This page is 100% unsourced. I thought surely the sponsoring organization would be a good source for all the detail about hometowns, ages, subsequent wins etc but no, they don't even find that detail important enough to track. They just offer a list of names and years, along side a list of Miss Rhode Island USA winners. That leaves us with a copyvio list of names and unverified details to go with the names. If the company does not even care enough to give the past winner list its own page with basic bio details, how can this be important enough for an article here? Perhaps a mention at the Miss Teen USA page is enough. http://www.missrhodeislandusa.com/rhodeisland_fame.html Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if that's likely as well as there's nothing solid to suggest better independent notability for an article aside from the expected coverage for these pageants. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note: I have heavily edited the article under consideration here. Pretty much all of the important info in the article is now sourced, and there do not appear to be any valid copyviolation concerns with the article at all. There are also a ton of other options for likely valid citation sources available, if one spent anytime trying to look for them. I would also note that AfD is not cleanup. Guy1890 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the contestants may or may not be notable, the contest certainly is notable; there is sufficient significant coverage by reliable sources. As noted above, AfD is not about the current state of the article so much as its potential. Jacona (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank you to Guy1890 for his clean-up work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to their major competition where one article covers all the states: Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, guess what happened there? Your running mate sent that article to AfD, too. There really is no pleasing the anti-pageant crowd, because for some reason any coverage of pageants will somehow offend them, for whatever reason. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly - no rational for keeping, and when an example is provided, insults to the nominator and User:The_Banner who has not even commented here. I trust the closing admin will weigh these comments appropriately. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77: I am not interested in personal attacks. Could you remove that? The Banner talk 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are proposing merging a bunch of state articles like the one under consideration here, but this is not the proper forum for that kind of discussion either. The article that you point to here for some reason is also currently over 127,000 bytes long, which is well over the mark when an article should be sub-divided.

I've also personally never heard of the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant system, but it appears to go back only to around 2005, while the article under consideration here goes back to around 1983. Guy1890 (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 35 edits to the article adding 66 citations after the nomination and the delete !vote makes those !votes dated. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 27 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 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sybreed[edit]

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

Ah the author happened to remove this at the 7 day period so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions, other Wikis have no considerable improvement and all in all, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement.". SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - there's no good sources and nothing suggesting notability. The linked album pages should go as well - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 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) 01:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's keep the article and try to improve it and get better sources, rather than destroying it which would be a premature and unfortunate move. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been three weeks and nobody's found anything. Do you have any sources that would pass Wikipedia sourcing muster? - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. sst✈^discuss 11:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Granger[edit]

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

I was actually going to speedy and/or PROD considering the current article's state and my searches only found unusable mentions for solid notability at News, Books and browsers but then I noticed the CLIO Award which is listed as one of the best awards for advertisers so here we are for better consensus and insight. Frankly, I still feel this is easily speedy material and is an example of WP:TNT at best. I also suggest looking at the history which has seemingly had several contributors since being started by Kylehoedl in May 2010. Notifying author Kylehoedl. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Baker[edit]

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

My PROD was removed Valfontis as this had actually been PRODed before here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and speaking of the history, you'll notice this article has had quite a noticeable one with both the subject (??) removing and questioning its accuracy as well as vandalism (see talk page as well). I note I still confirm and echo my PROD: Seemingly questionably notable and improvable biography as my searches only found a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much to improve sourcing, notability and improvement overall here. 2009 history also suggests the subject questions the accuracy of this article as well (is that was her?? Things here aren't certain one side or another at all) and there has also been other BLP vandalism and troubles so this also contributes to this simply being best deleted for now.". SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are clearly inadequate-- the New York one is not even an article, but a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMODEL. MB298 (talk) 17:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Hayat[edit]

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

I can see nothing in the sources given that conveys any notability. I am aware that establishing notability for Pakistan nationals isn't always easy but this falls well short of any real sense of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- but hold to give the writer of the article (possibly Hayat himself?) time to respond to the requests on the talk page. The author definitely wants to create a significant, not puffery page and may engage with the discussion but doesn't seem to have all the tools at the disposal. As it is though, I can't find a single library holding in WorldCat for the poetry collection. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:57, 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) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches clearly found nothing better even for a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep He is significant figure and has a side info in google, he is notable for google but it has controversies here in Wikipedia. He has devoted a long services to Khowar and Urdu languages as far as I know. Where there he works, no electronic or print media is available, so nobody can easily say after searching on Google that he is not a significant figure. So I suggest to keep it up. AQHayat (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep This person is a well-known writer and poet throughout Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral and has written much on Khowar Language. He has written a poetry book of his own. Must be keep. Ghizeri (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Ghizeri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER - improvement with new references not possible, as they are unavailable. Scr★pIron^IV 14:24, 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 redirect to University of Exeter#Student life. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Exeter Debating Society[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB or WP:ORG. Few mentions in independent sources and mostly based around who spoke there. Created by a COI editor Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Aloneinthewild (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Please do not delete. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the page which I think I have now corrected. There are a number of significant, non-trivial, reliable and independent news sources covering events at the Exeter University Debating Society which I think satisfy the notability criteria (WP:GNG). Previously, there were three independent sources quoted on the page: the Exeter University Student paper Exepose (perhaps not sufficient for WP:AUD?); "TheNationalStudent.com" whose reputation, audience and reliability is unclear but most persuasively on a Mail Online blog by Peter Hitchens who spoke at the Society. This article in the Mail Online alone could be sufficient for notability (WP:GNG) as it reports on the Society in a non-trivial way which seemingly satisfies an array of rules such as WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. However it could be argued that the Hitchens blog was more about the topic of debate (legalizing Cannabis) rather than the Society itself which merely provided the platform. So for good measure I have added two additional significant, reliable and independent sources. First is the coverage of the controversial visit of Enoch Powell in 1968. Clearly this is nearly 50 years ago which I guess shouldn't matter (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). This visit caused a significant demonstration by the students which was covered in a non-trivial way at the time by The Daily Telegraph and Exeter Express & Echo; there is also a video on the reference from a film archive. Second, I have also added coverage in The Independent of a debate on student fees, but again the Society merely provided the platform and so may fail WP:SIGCOV although the journalist does describe the Society as "infamous". Clearly just having notable speakers isn't sufficient for notability WP:INHERITORG. However, having the events at the Society independently reported in a non-trivial, verifiable (WP:NRV) way in reputable local and national newspapers which appear to satisfy WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND should be sufficient, surely?

Do not MERGE or REDIRECT. The Society does have a long history which is distinct and separate from Exeter University - so I don't feel it should be MERGED with or REDIRECTED to the Exeter University page, if I have interpreted WP:BRANCH and WP:MERGEREASON correctly? Any thoughts from others? Alphaomega111 (talk) 12:34, 10 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} 02:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Exeter#Student life perhaps where it is currently mentioned as this society's age certainly makes it notable and at least considerably known, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments SwisterTwister. I have attempted to make the article more interesting, more structured, add more coverage from appropriate sources and cut out superfluous content. I do think the article is now significantly better (in content, structure and references) due to this process and continue to think it should be a separate article from University of Exeter#Student life for three reasons. First the Society (1893) predates the University (Royal Charter in 1955) and has references to pre 1955 events making it slightly incongruent and not meshing well with University of Exeter#Student life. Second including the University of Exeter Debating Society content in the University of Exeter#Student life page may make the combined article too unwieldy and too wide ranging. Lastly I think there is sufficient notable, non-trivial and interesting content to justify a distinct Wikipedia entry for the University of Exeter Debating Society. Any more thoughts and contributions from others would be excellent?Alphaomega111 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alphaomega, maybe I can offer some advise of what might show this society is notable. Firstly I think we need some reliable source that the debating society has existed since 1893 and for the history section as a whole. This information looks reasonable but we don't have a source for it, maybe one could be found from the university archives, a book, a newspaper clipping. Remember we need something reliable and independent as a source.. Second, the list of patrons, alumni and speakers are just trivial, are there any sources that they actually were involved? At the moment we could think this was made up. Unfortunately Hitchens blog is not an independent source. I'd image if you are involved with this society then there would be some archives which could provide some sources? Aloneinthewild (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the refs and they don't establish notability, mostly they mention the club in a very trivial way. My guess is that the keep votes in this afd have a coi. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments and help. I have a historic knowledge of the Society but no contact with the current Society - as such I am entirely disinterested whether the article is kept, redirected or deleted. My interest for putting the case to keep the article comes from a natural curiosity over the editorial mechanism of Wikipedia. For what its worth, I continue to vote for KEEP. You are right Szzuk that many of the references don't establish notability - those references are for background and context. However, surely the Enoch Powell reference is valid? It is independent (written by the Institute of Historical Research). It has been edited and references checked by professional historians and I think does cover the Society in a non-Trivial way. The demonstration would not have occurred but for the existence of the Society and the incident directly led to a dedicated article in the Daily Telegraph at that time, not a trivial mention. Also thanks to Aloneinthewild for the help - there are many documents in the Archive at Exeter University - a weekly report on the debates was included in the annual summary of events at the University and preceding institutions back to 1893 and more recently (from the 1990's on) they do have copies of the year books published by the Society listing the Patrons, Presidents etc. Sadly I only have a couple of year books (which I could scan, it would help?) but haven't really got the time or in reality the ability to travel to Exeter and dig around in the University Archives. As I say, I'm interested in the process rather than the outcome. Alphaomega111 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or rather redirect as suggested) -- With the possible exceptions of the Oxford and Cambridge Union Societies, I have grave doubts as to whether any such undergraduate societies are notable. I am strengthened in this view by the list of presidents only having one blue-link in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 27 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 List of supercentenarians who died in 2007. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Tauser[edit]

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

Being the oldest German person (for one day) is not notable when the only sources are three WP:ROUTINE obituaries. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion. De minimis title holder. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate list. Someone should talk to the police about the fact that she was predeceased by two children, six grandchildren, ten great-grandchildren and one great-great-grandchild; there's something fishy going on here. EEng (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be on a list somewhere. All those deaths in the family... scary! Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe List of supercentenarian serial killers? EEng (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant list. I partially agree with EEng, but without the disrespectful sarcasm regarding her having outlived some of her relatives. 930310 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Lacks sense of humor.Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Arena-DeRosa[edit]

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

Previously deleted article about a person who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Only significant coverage has come from press releases from organizations he has worked for and routine news coverage of his hiring (which borrows greatly from the organization's press release) and his political campaign. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of local news stories, one of which is a recycled press release, with one campaign news story. The only claim to notability (assertion of significance) made in the lead is as president and CEO of Foodshare; however Foodshare, a local social service organization, itself is not notable, and I found no suggestion that being its president conferred any special notability. He fails to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, hence fails WP:BLPNOTE. As just a candidate, there is nothing for him at WP:NPOL. --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid level administrator and unelected political candidate. Routine local news coverage only. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German intervention against ISIL[edit]

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

This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, when users create a military conflict page, based solely on a single declaration. So far, not even a single German soldier or ship or airplane has participated in the effort against ISIL. It is not even clear if there will be. So Germany announced it will join Operation Inherent Resolve, so what? Nothing happened so far to justify such a page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The military operation will start in 2016. Stefanomione (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. On 10 December 2015, forty personnel and two Tornados flew to Incirlik. Gavbadger (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG easily —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The clear announcement of military intervention already constitutes an intervention by itself. Though the article fails to point that out, Germany has already intervened before by providing the Iraqi Peshmerga with weapons and training them. PanchoS (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion: this topic is clearly notable Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree fully with the above. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic appears to be notable, and I would imagine that the commencement of operations will result in the article being expanded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 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 speedy keep. Not promotional and also WP:SK 3 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix P-12 Community College[edit]

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion --Mr.Luther34-- 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Tone is not unsalvageably promotional—I don't even think it's promotional at all. Lots of sources, even if most are primary. Not a bad start for a school article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can the article be "advertising" when it is a tuition free state run school with nothing to sell? Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a well established working consensus that secondary schools are notable, unless a hoax is involved or sources are entirely lacking. Rather than trying to delete the article, it would be better to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were written like a promotional piece for the school, that would be one thing. However, this reads like an encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't appear particularly promotional. Secondary schools are generally notable on their own. clpo13_(talk) 20:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not promotional material, is a state school. There are many other wikipedia pages about schools which are very similar to this one. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supercharge Me[edit]

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

Movie does not appear on either IMDB or Box office mojo, meaning this is pretty much just an internet release. That's dodgy with regards to notability. The one cite in the article appears to be the sum total of coverage - and was pre-release. See [33]. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:NF. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bullshit movie promoting bullshit. A thinly-masked advertorial for refuted nonsense, with no substantive reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this passed NFILM. On a side note, please be a little more civil when making your deletion argument, JzG. Wikipedia isn't censored and I do see where you make a policy based argument, but I don't want someone to be able to depreciate your argument by saying that you sounded uncivil. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability quite resoundingly. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete as even though the substantive independent authored coverage in such as Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Cinencuentro (Spanish), Reuters and lessor independent coverage in such as Culturemap Houston, Harvard Crimson, The Diamondback, and Ecoticias (Spanish) seemingly allow a meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF, are all essentially articles that promote the fringe vegan-ism. And the many other available sources such as Yogi Times are all vegan and raw-foods fringe sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SiteScreen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria. Can't find substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has won significant awards, which is reliably sourced. Outside that, the rest of the page is unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better and this has hardly changed since the first AfD when the only still active user Cullen328 commented and also when Deb tagged the article as such not long after the article started. With no better signs of better notability and improvement, there's no better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to deletion at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't remember it but it does read as blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 10:34, 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. Clear consensus heading towards deleted. Due to the SPI and that no good will come of this discussion being left open further, I am closing it a number of hours early. Mkdw ^talk 02:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Burbano[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are listing or lack independence. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject. reddogsix (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources cited are by her, affiliated with her, or passing mentions, or have no mention at all. The HowlRound article mentions her the most frequently, but it's still thin, without a real focus on her. My own search turns up nothing more substantial. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thanks for starting this, I thought of doing so earlier today. I've looked for sources but found nothing that is better than what is already in the article, and as already stated, those sources are either primary or trivial. Several of the sources merely mention her name in a list of people, and two of them don't mention her at all. HowlRound is a user created website, and I agree that the article is not deep coverage, even if it could be considered a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Every mainstream sites likes nytimes , guardian , huffingstonpost all are based on user type entry as they are either permanent journalists or temperory. There is a nytimes link mentioning the works of Diana in the article. Always :) 16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

Please use four tildes (~~~) to sign your name to edits. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always do that Always :) is my customised sign when i use 4 tild signs to sign Always :) 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As it says at WP:CUSTOMSIG, "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." Your signature lacks links to both your user and user talk pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I just now noted User:reddogsix harassing me by telling lie and he state Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject Thats a lie ! And i dont know why the user is upon me for this . He initially speeded this article even though it had enough links including nytimes link and few interview links . further he placed socketpuppy investigation on me of me and now telling some lie . Always :) 16:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - When someone states, "I was trying to fix a Wiki page that someone created for me..." is does appears the work was created as a request of the subject. I did not say this was the case, I only said it appears to be the case. There is no harassment, only an application of WP:DUCK.

Once more, Please use four tildes (~~~) to sign your name to edits. reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "even though it had enough links", but quantity alone is insufficient. A list of a hundred links to articles written by the subject herself, or on the websites of organizations she's affiliated with, or that only just mention her name in passing wouldn't, on its own, support inclusion. The New York Times reference is nothing but a standard listing of biographical data that they keep for everyone they mention in their paper. Note that they don't even have a biography for her, just a raw listing of the shows she's been involved with. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I was trying to fix a Wiki page that someone created for me..." means what ? How can you conclude that it meant that he/she requested me to create a page ? Terrible Always :) (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article from Los Angeles Times fourth most widely distributed newspaper in America. A filmography link from The New York Times second largest newpaper in America , a quality article about Diana Burbano from Howlround . A link from Metropolitan Community College official website and many more proves notability of the playwright , A quality link from broadwayworld is also added. Always :) (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's be clear here, the article in the LA Times only mentions the subject as someone that played the character Lullabelle. As stated before, the "New York Times reference is nothing but a standard listing of biographical data that they keep for everyone they mention in their paper" - a simple listing. The Howlround article is not really about her - although she is briefly mentioned - the article fails to provide non-trivial coverage. I am not sure what you mean by "quality link," but the "broadwayworld" link is not an article of substance, only an announcement her play will be read on a certain date - again it lacks substance. reddogsix (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the notability guidelines and understand them before bringing up the same sources again. Besides the ones that reddog6 dealt with, the MCC page is very much exactly not the sort of source that supports notability. She's participating in a program of theirs, so of course she's included in a listing of the people who are in that program. It isn't an independent source. And all they mention is her name, her city of residence, and the title of her play. This isn't substantial coverage. Citing this source to establish notability is like citing the phone book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pls include List of playwrights from the United States as well . Thanks Always :) (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are established lists of deletion discussions. They exist to help people who are interested in participating in deletion discussions on topics in particular areas of interest find them. There isn't a list of deletion discussions specific to playwrights from the United States. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the level of threatening behavior displayed by User:reddogsix and User:Largoplazo in this thread is horrible and unnecessary. I cannot believe how anyone can consider this as acceptable. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this threatening behaviour?Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "threatening behavior", do you mean something other than "threatening to support the removal of an article that doesn't conform to guidelines"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MurderByDeadcopy! - It is easy to make a inaccurate statement, but difficult to support it. I see you have not provided support for your ridiculous comment. </sigh>. reddogsix (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with MurderByDeadcopy that the tone of this discussion has turned somewhat hostile. The discussion should deal with the article, its sources and so on. I'm sorry, but AfD guidelines state that even if an article is created for allegedly vanity reasons that's not a solid reason for deletion. Constantly reminding another editor here of their mistakes is in bad form. It's uneccesary and clogs the discussion. Take that to the talk page. A lot of assumptions have been made here and it's ruining the discussion. Focus on facts, not assertions that this is a vanity or puff article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches only found a few mentions here and there with "Diana Burbano playwright" at News, browsers and Highbeam and hardly much for a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been protected while an SPI is being conducted. One editor has alluded that the article was created as part of a learning exercise. As such, this AFD discussion is being restricted to only auto-confirmed accounts as to avoid further drawn out arguments. If the SPI is inconclusive, I will remove the semi-protection. I remind all parties in this discussion to please remain civil. I encourage that extra leniency be shown to new editors so as not to bite them while in the same breath censuring Alwayssmileguys for making personal attacks. No matter the situation, WP:NPA must always be adhered. Mkdw ^talk 06:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New reference links are added to support the article. Always :) (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying, but, in the order in which the new sources appear in the reference list:

BroadwayWorld.com: Passing mention.
dgfund.org: An organization writing about its own activities. Not independent.
dramatistsguild.com: An organization's profile of its own member. Not independent.
oc-centric:An interview with a participant in the organization's own program. Not independent. (If this had been in the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times, that might have been a different matter.)
South Coast Repertory: Her own company and only a passing mention.
The Frida Cinema: Passing mention in a long list of names.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a person gets oscar , the oscar website is the best reference link it seems ,as the support link ? Am i right ? Similarly i used dgfund.org and dramatistsguid.com as references . Always :) (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For verification, but not to establish notability. For example, Oscars themselves are considered notable because they're written about, in depth, everywhere, not because they're written about on the Oscar website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough non-trivial coverage beyond a few local mentions to satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created at 19:02. Only seven minutes later while the creator was obviously working on improving the article user:Reddogsix nominated it for CSD-A7: No indication of importance Take a look at the article and tell do you agree? Just that in itself indicates to me that the nominator has not done his homework and is way too aggressive. It was very fortunate that the admin who rejected the speedy happened to be there. I have seen other admins who just could not be bothered to do even a minimal check.

Instead of taking a deep breath and doing some checking what does Reddogsix do — proceeds directly to AfD, Sigh... would you do that if you are seriously considering what is best for wikipedia? Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech - can you really read my mind and determine I did not research the article? I am amazed and impressed by your abilities. If the notability guidelines are ever removed then we would not have this conversation because all individuals would be entitled to an article, but then what would be the use of having Wikipedia. Focus on the substance of the article and if it meets the criteria for inclusion, I did. </sigh> reddogsix (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to add to the above statement putting comments in your edit summary like you did is not appropriate. Edit summaries are not meant for comments other than a summary of your actual edit. Mrfrobinson (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not one person was premature or correct in applying A7 to the article isn't relevant to the consideration here of whether the article should be deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the various references are passing and trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been blocked for socking, not paid editing. Stop making these accusations unless you have proof. It's unnecessary! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account for socking, true. I also stated at the SPI that the individual was "fairly clearly a paid editor." Proof? This is not a court of law, but every editor (perhaps not you) who has looked at this individual's edits - and that includes all of their socks - has reached the same conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 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 Withdrawn — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Winters[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney for the complexities of this walled garden. This biography was written by the same sock puppets, with all the same problems as the Chaney article (and the others). I had gone through the article to remove the poor sources and try to see what was underneath and found insufficient evidence of notability, which when considering all of the other issues associated with these articles (again, see the Chaney AfD), led me to PROD it. It wasn't deleted after 7 days, and on the 8th was deprodded by an IP requesting discussion based on a role in Kotch. To be clear, unlike some of the other articles there is evidence Winters exists and that she has been in some films -- there are a few brief mentions on e.g. rogerebert.com, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. It seems worth emphasizing that a symptom of all of these articles is that they rely on big claims and tons of credits that exist almost exclusively in primary and user-generated sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other AfDs (all now closed)

More information also at the other AfDs (linked above): — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she was Walter Matthau's co-star in a film that received several Academy Award noms. I was predisposed to let the Prod complete because of all the other problematic pages in the Chaneyverse, but I just looked at Kotch on YouTube and there sits Deborah Winters in the first scene. She is notable. As long as the article is kept trim and devoid of problematic cites, we're good here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was also in Winds of War (and not a small part either). Now, we ought to scrutinize the hell out of this article and keep it on our watch lists, but I think she is probably notable. (I'm actually doing my annual WOW watch trough right now.....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough. It looks like there's a case for WP:NACTOR and perhaps the issues are not as pervasive as they are with Chaney such that in this case it doesn't merit WP:TNT (especially considering it's pretty stripped down now). I'll just go ahead and withdraw this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Futurecop![edit]

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

Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Enough found to be close to satisfying notability criteria, and I expect my one Google search won't have found everything: [34], [35], [36], [37]. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Michig. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:36, 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 redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandee McCoskey[edit]

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

As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degen Kasper this article suffers from the same problems as that one - she won a teen pageant at the state level that is not really notable. Generally teen pageant winners do not get articles based only on that 1 event. Her further career does not suggest any reason for notability. Delete it. The only "source" is mostly behind a paywall but seems to be about someone or something else. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA. There are not any RS's here. Jacona (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People notable only for winning state level teenage beauty pageants are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA#Winners. Redirects are cheap, the search term is plausible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 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 redirect to Corbeil-Essonnes. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altis Semiconductor[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable source coverage of this company besides press releases, no evidence of notability. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as I found only passing mentions at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam, nothing for an outstandingly better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corbeil-Essonnes with Template:R with possibilities. [38]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 27 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. If this becomes more notable later than it can be recreated, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 463[edit]

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

Might have been events are not particularly notable for a stand-alone articles MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.User:Emigdioofmiami, If we were to make an article for every hoax, then 20% of wiki would be dedicated to hoax (not really, but it would be overloaded with junk articles) Emigdioofmiami (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH - no damage done, no people hurt, no learnings for air safety, not a novel kind of incident, no political ramifications. Leondz (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as mentioned above. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a small hoax. No air traffic halted or anything like it--Planecrashexpert (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG etc. etc.--Petebutt (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Maybe speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete per above. ansh 666 05:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depending on if a political group or organisation claims responsibility for the hoax, or is accused of involvement this incident could be more broadly notable. Seems a very quick rush to judgement AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this incident can be adequately handled at the Air France accidents and incidents article. It is not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, a note on the Air France's accidents and incident page is sufficient. --Zerbey (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apsmart[edit]

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

The only coverage I can find of this company is about its acquisition by Thomson Reuters (i.e. [39]), otherwise not notable. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious material for deletion which I've voraciously been searching all the site for, and my searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at News and browsers both which insinuate this is only a local "starting" company. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Startup is not notable yet, may be too early. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 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. Sandstein 11:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Johnson[edit]

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

Example of WP:BLP1E. No coverage outside of that one single event. Delete. JudgeJason (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article passed the AfC process, so has already been vetted at a pretty high level. The subject of the article is and has been active locally, including founding an organization chapter. Local coverage does count towards GNG. When people look her up because of the Sanders incident, I want them to find her on wiki, though that's my opinion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that this is a BLP1E is without merit, as the article has local, national and international sources (KING-TV, Associated Press and International Socialist Organization respectively) from well before the Bernie Sanders incident. This was already addressed during the AFC process, as was noted by Megalibrarygirl. – Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is one event, which one? We have Ferguson and Seattle references. Jacona (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though she was involved in other activities, she is only notable for the Sanders interuption, so this article still fails WP:BLP1E. Anything else she was involved in fails WP:N. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's not notable just for Sanders incident, but for her activism in movements such as Black Lives Matter. WP:BLP1E applies to low-profile individuals. As a leader in a national civil rights movement, she is not low-profile. Fuzchia (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a citation where a respectable commentator called the BLM role in national politics, due in large part to Johnson's actions, as the most important news story of 2015. Brianhe (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article consists of a handful of anecdotes, no evidence of being a national political leader. --Soman (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are incorrectly conflating notable with "national political leadership", but even so, Johnson has been amply demonstrated to be noted by multiple independent sources as a key figure in a highly visible national political movement. This has also been judged by other Wikipedians by her inclusion as one of seven BLM people at {{Black Lives Matter}} since November. – Brianhe (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Lives Matter which covers the Sanders' disruption. I checked Google books and not surprisingly found nothing there. I looked at a couple of articles from the Seattle Times. One from 10 August said, "Not much is yet publicly known about Johnson", and the one from 15 August said, "Johnson talked briefly to The Seattle Times last week, but did not get back in touch for an interview..." This is covered both by WP:TOOSOON and WP:EFFECT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yacine Brahimi career statistics[edit]

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

AfD rather than PROD as I believe that it will be contested. Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS Spiderone 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTSTATS. We absolutely definitely don't need an article detailing every single game played by a player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris. Eagleash (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris and nom. Kante4 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious WP:NOTSTATS failure. Fenix down (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 18:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NOTSTATS. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:52, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathiravanin Kodai Mazhai[edit]

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

This appears to be a purported Kollywood film.
As such, I would have expected to find at least some English language mentions in sources, reliable or perhaps not so reliable.
As you can see from the default "(Find sources: "Kathiravanin Kodai Mazhai" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)" links added when an WP:AFD is started, I have failed to find any.
Maybe this is a film student project or a show reel by up and coming Kollywood young film makers? If so, my best wishes to them.
Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. It clearly says "upcoming", with no indication of notability. Just advertising a future movie. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "Kodai Mazhai" "Kathiravan" "Dr T. Alexander" "K. Sureshkumar" "Kannan" "Mu Kalanchiyam" "Sri Priyanka"

Delete per being TOO SOON. I will note that while the topic is not exactly unsourcable, the article author used an incorrect title... as which appears to actually be "கதிரவனின் கோடை மழை" means "Kodai Mazhai('s) Summer Rain".This needs correction and lots of editorial attention. Allow a return after release and with proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 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 redirect to Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Marie Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (just a preliminary round and the main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The winner of the main Miss Guam pageant may well be notable, since she may well come to have a notable role. The winner of a lower role that creates competition in a second rate pageant is not notable just for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. Fails WP:NMODEL as pageant participants are modeling and performing on stage. She has no lasting impact or significant coverage in actual RS. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders. Plausible redirect, and they are, as always, cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 27 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 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oceann Hai[edit]

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

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

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

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

suggesting self-promotion. Perhaps this imdb page is a little clearer about her filmography.Pinging User:Wikimandia User:SwisterTwister who seem experienced judging these pages. Timmyshin (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - The achievements are clearly listed on imdb and the notability is widely reported by most the major medias in China. It is racist to doubt the notability because you can not read Chinese. The titles including Miss Asia USA Global and Miss Glory of Universe are all major pageant queen title holders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.0.117.4 (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 173.0.117.4 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Asia USA Global and Miss Glory of Universe are all major pageant queen title holders" yet there are no pages for them, nor are these events mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't doubt these pageants exist but no notable. Timmyshin (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a resume, I can't understand Chinese. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as my searches found nothing better at all and the article would certainly need to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We'd better be careful with this one. It is sourced, albeit primarily in a language neither I nor some of the people voting here read. Remember that sources need not be in English to pass notability. As such, I don't think I (or anybody else who doesn't read Chinese) can really say if this is notable or not. p b p 15:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your reservation, but please realize this person has not done anything in China or the Chinese-speaking world (besides attending school). Every single film project she's involved in (listed on this page and on IMDB) was done in the U.S. The "Miss Asia USA Global" was obviously held in the USA. "Miss Glory of Universe" was held in India. So why does this page cite no English-language sources but only Chinese-language sources? The answer is simple. Imagine an American guy going to China and appearing in an extra role in a Chinese web drama series. Back home he can brag all he wants that he became a superstar in China, and not knowing anything better who in his community (that is not Chinese) is going to say otherwise? In her case, all the Chinese sources cited in this article use designations such as "Hollywood Star Hai Zexi (好莱坞女星海泽熙)" or "Hollywood's young Chinese Star Hai Yan (好莱坞华人新星海蓝)", and in my opinion it's very obvious who wrote those pieces. Bottom line is she has not appeared in any film or pageant that is notable in any country (that has a page on Wikipedia), and this is not something that should be overlooked just because her family, friends and herself put up 30 links (and accuse others of racism) to help her case. Timmyshin (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ I found thousands of news talking about her , along with other major actress and actors, they are just not uploaded to wikipedia's page . Maybe I can help with it later. It is not appropriate to attack others only because you are not familiar with something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.0.117.4 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 173.0.117.4 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

User:Wikimandia User:SwisterTwister User:Purplebackpack89 Seems like the socks are really desperate, see [40]. Timmyshin (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TNT and WP:Too soon. I have looked through most of the sources cited in the article. Purplebackpack89, I'm afraid I agree with Timmyshin's analysis. She only has minor roles in Hollywood and won minor pageant titles, but the Chinese media has blown it out of proportion. Given the current state of the article, I think we should WP:TNT it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to re-creating an article on her when English-language coverage of her Hollywood work emerge in the future - as an active actress and beauty pageant contestant, this will probably happen in the next few years, just not yet. Der yck C. 14:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the face of it , the article is so promotional that in combination with the dubious notability there seems no basis for keeping it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Just needs some minor adjustments such as family background and history that led to financial success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8600:B400:EC20:5E3A:6CAD:CE6 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 2605:E000:8600:B400:EC20:5E3A:6CAD:CE6 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete It seems like someone is quite hostile to her on wikipedia which is a good thing. Since most major media in China already recognized her it already means she has a name there. it does not really matter where her accomplishments are. Besides, no one has right to make Oceann Hai take responsibility for any wikipedia editting. It could be her enemies anyway. I had the same experience before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangqi12345 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Zhangqi12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK 1 (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liaquat University Hospital, Hyderabad[edit]

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

A notable organisation but the tone of the article is written like an advertisement. Ayub407^talk 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per nom. The article has been pruned of the unsourced, flowery language. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned as the historical connections should certainly be enough for a notable and acceptable article, familiar attention will also be needed if better sources are unavailable for English users. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is articles for deletion, not cleanup. Even the nominator says it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say here is that the article is written in the tone of advertisement. We're seeking consensus to decide whether the article should stay or be deleted. Ayub407^talk 16:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD, first bullet. I think I have addressed the issues with tone. I don't think a reasonable editor would look at the article and find fault with the tone. Do you think we can close this nomination now? EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to decide whether the subject is notable enough for an article. Since you yourself have said it is then why nominate it for deletion? Anything else is cleanup and that's not what AfD is for, since that's easily remedied - just delete anything that looks like an advert and hey presto, decent article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I see your point. Article was significantly improve since this nomination opened. I agree now to close the nomination. Ayub407^talk 04:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Education in Ghana#Structure of formal education. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Basic School Education Curriculum[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't see the evidence of notability required for a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Un-notable educational institution. Looks like it's an elementary school and daycare.. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am wondering if it would be plausible to redirect to Education in Ghana#Structure of formal education. Unless I am missing something, this does not refer to any specific school, but this is certainly not an area of expertise for me. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it doesn't refer to any school but a basic education curriculum unless I'm also missing something.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have all suggested, its not a school but rather a curriculum or perhaps the system of education used in Ghana from pre-school to junior high school (ninth grade). This article must stand on its as the topic clearly defines its contents and takes you straight to what you are looking for, however merging it with another article or even deleting it will will remove i significance.--Flixtey (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section doesn't do a good job of summarizing anything related to the curriculum. The lead more specifically applies to the overall educational system structure, so I think that is contributing to the uncertainty. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Ghana#Structure of formal education per the lack of coverage. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aletheian[edit]

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

Aside from the one currently listed review from an unfamiliar website "The Phantom Tollbooth", my searches certainly found nothing obviously better than 3 pages of browsers results including a metal-underground.com link which apparently never actually appears but from the preview, it said that they had signed a record label deal with Ironclad, and my only other successful searches were a sputnikmusic.com page and one article at blabbermouth.net (I'll note terrorizer.com and metalhammer.com also found nothing apparently). Although there is an Allmusic biography and one review there, I'm simply not sure if all this is enough for a better solidly notable and improvable article. Overall there's simply nothing to suggest a better notable and improvable article and that's not surprising, considering it seems they're not considerably active and otherwise outstandingly known. SwisterTwister talk 08:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister, their drummer Travis Turner has a podcast where he brings up his band multiple times, and I'm sure there are more references to be found. Metalworker14 (Yo) 4:02, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

Keep: This group passes BAND by GNG, where it has a biography at AllMusic (here) and a review (here), while their album was reviewed by Cross Rhythms (here), and yet another album was reviewed by The Phantom Tollbooth (here), where they are mentioned on the CCM sources list. They are even mentioned in Christian Metal: History, Ideology, Scene by Marcus Moberg (here).The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:NBAND and WP:GNG per the multiple independent reliable sources I found with a quick google search and the reviews. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is no sensible reason to delete this article. However, it needs better sources, so let's work on that goal instead. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 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. I discount the !vote by CatcherStorm, which does not present any argument for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mosh & Go[edit]

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

Non-notable album ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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} 07:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this compilation meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow talk 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, a non-notable release. Azealia911 _talk 18:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM criteria. No significant reliable coverage on Google/News/Archive/Books, and nothing in JSTOR or Highbeam. There are some ~~fan-blog~~ reviews of the film, but not reliable sources. (Update: Tokyogirl79 has pointed out that this DVD Verdict page is indeed a reliable source!) This This Cinemagazine description is better but not enough to stand on its own. Finally, as this was a direct-to-DVD release, Death Toll was likely not a significant part of DMX's or Lou Diamond Phillips' careers, and thus does not attract notability that way. /wia🎄/tlk 15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DVD Verdict is seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia, so it can be used to show notability. I will admit that offhand it doesn't come across as such at first glance, so I can understand thinking that it would be - I think I did the same thing when I initially came across it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, that said, I'm pulling up a big fat nothing for the most part when I search. This seems to have gotten almost solidly ignored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some "ALTS":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep per creeping up on WP:NF. Needs more work, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:45, 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} 07:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep but get the needed sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:49, 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 speedy delete. unsourced about very local children's team, obviously non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix south bay[edit]

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

Looks pretty bad, weird, unwikified. 333 -blue 06:26, 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 Swmrs. There seems to be rough consensus for a redirect. The redirect should also be locked if needed. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Armstrong[edit]

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

Band may be notable. Subject is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just turn it back into a re-direct? Thought I'd give the page a shot. Guess Not. Walter Görlitz (talk) Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted and salted so this doesn't happen again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete it, just turn it back to a direct. Simple has that. There's no harm in it. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and lock it if needed as there's nothing at all currently to suggest a solidly independent article. Draft and userfy if currently needed as well, SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 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 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Overs[edit]

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

Non-notable; only indication of even slight coverage is that the subject founded a notable pizza company, which does not confer notability per se. Only a few sources cover the subject; most in relation to tax evasion by a person related to him. Delete or merge into Pizza Pizza. Esquivalience ^t 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a notable company can be a claim of notability, if the resulting article is properly referenced to reliable source coverage that's substantively about him — but it is not a claim of notability that confers any automatic right to a standalone biography as a separate topic from the company, if the only source for that biography is an obituary (and a deadlinked one, at that.) Delete, or redirect to Pizza Pizza. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found several sources for the article. It may help. --TheDomain (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In light of the references that have been added; the subject meets WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose for now but I would personally instead say redirect to the Pizza Pizza company artice as it seems unlikely currently that there would be a better independent article aside from being best connected to the company. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 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 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added to the article are sufficient, if just barely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) Jacona (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I2Spy[edit]

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

The concept/software described here doesn't seem notable; in fact it seems to be a neologism of almost no use, probably some short lived and un-notable marketing buzzword. If anyone can find any reliable sources, go ahead, I couldn't even find this phrase described in the sources present in the article, through it doesn't help that it supposedly is known under several different terms, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is an amalgam of two topics separated by 5 years or so. The earlier Phorm controversy is already sufficiently covered on the page of the same name. Only the latter uses the term I2Spy and is limited to a particular piece of Spyware and its removal, and as per the nominator, I am seeing nothing to meet WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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 04:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CatcherStorm ^talk 09:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation inequality in the United States[edit]

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

Article appears to be a part of a class project. I recommend userfying the article back to Kjacks48 with an admonition about original research. Also recommend that Wikimedia Foundation remind Kent State University of article guidelines. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inequality within publicly traded companies. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a topic worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia (see e.g. this article in The Atlantic and this article at p. 167 of the Transportation Law Journal). I agree that the article needs a thorough copy edit, but I don't think it is so bad that we need to break out the WP:TNT. I think userfying could also be a potential solution, but again, I don't think this article is so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be removed from mainspace. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has established notability with appropriate references. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a possibility for an article here, but the current one is just an essay, and the rule is WP:SYNTHESIS.. People in the ed program need to learn the difference between the synthesis of facts that can be acceptable in a term paper, and an encyclopedia article. Even the Atlanticarticle cited above is about a s special aspect, not the general concept. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 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 04:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR/WP:SYNTH class project. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ESSAY and SYNTH. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ESSAY and SYNTH. No objections to userfication. Aspirex (talk) 22:46, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar Tirmazi[edit]

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

Unremarkable person fails WP:NN Jab843 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in at least one reliable source [41]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:36, 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 04:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia. Arashtitan talk 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep There are a number of WP:Reliable Sources in the news and books section to judge that published sources exist but unfortunately they have not been included in the article. Pixarh (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains 1 RS. Last time I looked 2 was the minimum number. Szzuk (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I hate promotional articles of unknown poets, Mazhar Tirmazi seems if not notable, then at least likely WP:SIGNIFICANT enough to be featured in an English encyclopaedia. Apart from above-mentioned article in The News, Daily Jang talks of him as "Punjabi's renowned poet" [42]; respected Dawn reports on his book launch [43]; and APNA (Academy of the Punjab in North America) features his poetry on their website [44]. kashmiri ^TALK 23:56, 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. Because deletion discussions are not a vote, I must take the strength of the arguments (that is, how well they conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines) into account.

The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, for instance in Muhammad in Islam, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. These are persuasive arguments that touch on several of Wikipedia's important content policies. The "keep" opinions would have had to address these arguments and make a case for why they do not apply. Almost all of them do not do so.

Leaving out the opinions by sockpuppets and by people simply expressing their own appreciation for the topic, most "keep" opinions consider this article to be a counterweight to Criticism of Muhammad. I can't give this argument weight, for two reasons: While Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, this applies to each individual article: we don't write "pro" articles to counterbalance "anti" articles. Also, each article is considered on its own merits; if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article.

Based on strength of arguments, therefore, we have a consensus to delete the article. Editors interested in improving the neutrality of the coverage of Muhammad should focus on improving the existing articles with material based on reliable sources, and consider whether some of these can be spun out into subarticles that allow more detailed coverage of some aspects, without having a built-in "pro" or "anti" slant defined by the title. Sandstein 11:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praise and veneration of Muhammad[edit]

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

Looks like a overtly positive article and made as response to Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad#Legacy was by far enough for including any positive impacts. Article actually contradicts WP:FANPAGE. Capitals00 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the article can benefit from further revision. Arashtitan talk 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Arashtitan can you tell the requirement of this article when we already have Muhammad#Legacy? Capitals00 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00 I think in order to cover the vast opinions it deserves a separate page, but it is subject to discussion of it should be merged with Criticism of Muhammad or not. Nevertheless, I agree that the redundancy should be avoided. Arashtitan talk 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" definitely needs an independent article for it. If I wanted to write an article about this topic in particular, I would definitely need at least ~500,000 bytes to cover it thoroughly.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As a non-Muslim, I am reluctant to comment on what I do not know, but this has the feel of an essay. However, the views of contemporaries and early successors (in the period while Islam was still in formation as a religion) on how Muhammad should be regarded, may be encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. I can't help but think that this article is a cherry-picked synthesis. I'd be slightly more comfortable if the article were renamed to a more neutral and factual "Muhammad in literature/poetry/etc." since that is what most of the text seems to be about. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::I have removed the side-quotes and it actually has less quotes than Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or Criticism_of_Muhammad. I disagree with the assertion that it is a "cherry-picked synthesis". The article is of encyclopedic value and contains valuable insight into the interesting perspectives of prominent Muslim personalities throughout history. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Keep Praise and veneration of Muhammad is a notable topic and deserves a separate page. The question is when we can have a separate page on Criticism of Muhammad which represents a negative point of view towards him then why we cannot have a page with positive point of view towards him when extraordinary praise and veneration can be proved by reliable sources. Sheriff | report | 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff: You hit the nail on the head when you compared the case with Criticism of Muhammad. Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also turn it the other way around: there are no praise articles for Jesus, Moses, etc. so why should there be a separate page on Praise and veneration of Muhammad? - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda is right but there is also no criticism articles on Moses or Jesus. Sheriff was trying to say "that similar articles exist or do not exist" is not the determining factor (am I right?). We'd better adhere to policies, the criteria which is ignored by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The more I study the article the more it occurs to me that it is a synthesised "list of praises" and "list of people who praise Muhammad". On top of that, it is a huge WP:QUOTEFARM of sayings and poetry. The only section that looks encyclopedic is the introduction. I would've imagined that an article about the Veneration of Muhammad describes how people venerate Muhammad, such as in this book, rather than quoting each and every example of praise (which is equal to using WP:PRIMARY sources). Besides, if people want an article about positive views, there's Muhammad in Islam, to which Veneration of Muhammad currently redirects. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Please see my previous comment, I disagree with these assertions. I have removed the excess quotes and it contains less quotes than articles such as Criticism_of_Islam#Nineteenth_and_twentieth_century or Criticism_of_Muhammad. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

There is still plenty left in the form of <blockquote> and {{quote}}. Just because other articles were written badly, does not mean that everything should degrade to that level. I had carefully tried not to mention the criticism articles, because frankly I disagree with their existence too, per the official WP:POVFORK guideline. We're an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece, and should thus stick to the facts. IMO the only time that opinions might be considered, is when facts are challenged. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::Thanks for stating that you disagree with the criticisms articles as well, because I think it goes to the core of whether or not perspectives (whether positive or negative) should be included in the WP encyclopedia. Both the criticisms articles and this one consists of persuasive statements, which are not reflective of impartial or neutral stances, but however, have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The issue therefore goes far deeper than this particular article. I think for the time being it is best to leave this article as it is, and perhaps discuss (as user:Arashtitan has suggested) whether or not to merge the criticisms article with this one while giving it a new title such as "Perspectives about Muhammad" or something like that. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

*Keep. The article gives a historical analysis from the 7th to 20th century of predominantly Muslim perspectives of Muhammad. The following sections are especially important Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Contemporaries_of_Muhammad, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Early_History, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Islamic_Golden_Age, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Ottoman_and_Mughal_Empires, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#18th-19th_Century, Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century as they give chronological details on trends within Muslim societies on the topic of praise and veneration of Muhammad. This topic has been the focus of prominent papers and books, including Annemarie Schimmel’s ‘’And Muhammad is his Messenger’’, Carl Ernst’s ‘’Muhammad as pole of existence’’ [45], as well as Ali S. Asani’s and Kamal Abdel-Malek’s ‘’Celebrating Muhammad’’ [46], all of which are referenced in the article. The article appears to be a historical piece and not so much a biographical piece. Just as the article Criticism of Muhammad gives an array of prominent figures in Judeo-Christian Civilization from the 7th century to the modern era on negative perspectives of Muhammad, I do not see why an article like this, which gives detailed accounts by prominent Muslim personalities of Muhammad which happen to be positive should be neglected. I think it is a valuable addition to the content available on Wikipedia. 69.165.152.170 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Delete. The article as written has a rather staggering number of issues. Much, maybe even most, of the article seems to be written as if it were a persuasive essay, offering primary source citations as proof for the given analysis in a manner that clearly violates both WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. What analysis that is left to secondary sources is dominated by one rather outdated source to which the vast bulk of citations link. The 1985 book by Annemarie Schimmel is cited 40 times, 1/3rd of all the citations in the article. Most of the non-superfluous information is redundant as it it covered in depth elsewhere in several articles, and the sheer volume of long quotations is overwhelming and unwieldy.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::The tone of the article is rather impartial, however the statements by the Muslims specified within the article are quite devout and may be seen as persuasive. Similarly the quotes by various Western scholars pertaining to criticisms, seen here [47], [48], and here [49] are also in a persuasive tone. If Martin Luther can say "a devil and first-born child of Satan" over here Criticism_of_Muhammad#Martin_Luther, then I do not see why Saadi Shirazi can not say "God made your praise and uttered your glorification" over here Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#Saadi_Shirazi. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Delete A timeline "List of praise quotes", whether it's Jesus or Muhammad or other, doesn't form an encyclopedic topic the same way that Criticism of Jesus and Criticism of Muhammad do. There are some bits of the Criticism articles that have some rather pointless quotes (for example the content-free Martin Luther quote needs to be replaced with some more informative explanation of Protestantism and Islam), but overall the criticism articles analyze and educate about the various conflicts from different perspectives. As HyperGaruda notes, the praise article is almost entirely a WP:QUOTEFARM. If someone wants to try to salvage something here, I'd suggest copying the entire article to a text file and separating out all of the quotes. Then look at the sentences that actually say something informative, and see if some of it can be used elsewhere or be pulled together to form a coherent article explaining something. Then some small number of quotes could be pulled in where they were actually necessary to educate or illustrate a specific point. Alsee (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::I disagree, criticisms are encyclopedic because they provide insight into negative opinions on a matter or personality. The opposite therefore should be allowed. This article is in regards to perspectives of various influencial Muslim personalities. I do not think allowing for negative opinions while removing positive opinions adheres with WP:OSE. To add, I have removed the excess quotes, which does not constitute WP:QUOTEFARM. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock) *Keep as it is an article that is of encyclopedic value and of significant importance. As per WP:OSE it is important to allow for the diverse opinions on such a personality to be shared in an encyclopedic format. The nature of the article is not much different from articles such as Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam. I have removed the excess quotes and what remains is an article that is about 80% quote-free and straight to the point, which are less quotes than many other articles, such as the ones mentioned previously. It could use improvements, however, deletion is contrary to WP:NPOV, since criticism articles have flourished on WP for some time now. An article aimed at praise and veneration is therefore of value. Articles such as Muhammad in Islam, Muhammad#Legacy, and Muhammad_in_Islam#Muslim_veneration_for_Muhammad do not properly address the historical perspectives of Muslim personalities, but rather focus on Islamic beliefs pertaining to Muhammad. I do not see any point in comparing the two articles. Similarly Muhammad#Medieval_Christian_views does not provide as much insight into the matter of negative perspectives as compared to Criticism of Muhammad. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

A few things. Firstly, WP:OSE is an essay, not a policy, so there is no requirement to "adhere" to it. Secondly, I think you are misreading it as well, as it states both "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged.", so it kind of discourages people from using it in precisely the way you are using it. It also says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist..." so I don't see how you consider this particular essay to support your line of reasoning that this page should exist on account of a Criticism page also existing. As a matter of fact, the essay is pretty much about how that is NOT a good reason for it to exist, summed up perfectly by this quote: "When an editor introduces a novel type of article in Wikipedia, it may be necessary, however, to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of articles doesn't exist because of inherent violations of said policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate."(emphasis added). So, your assertion that this article's very clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH should be overlooked in order to adhere to WP:OSE is completely backward, as the essay you reference explicitly speaks out against that.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::You could use the same reasoning on articles such as Criticism of Jesus or Criticism of Muhammad. As I have stated, I do not believe that this article violates WP:NPOV since it details the the perspectives of historical personalities in a neutral and impartial way. No where does it explicitly say that "Saadi Shirazi is without a doubt right," rather it states Saadi Shirazi's views and statements in regards to Muhammad. The same is done in the criticisms article. As for WP:SYNTH I think that the nature of the article is such that it is an analysis, compilation and resource for various positive perspectives about Muhammad. Like I said, it is no different in principal from the analysis, compilation and resources provided in the criticisms articles provided above. As for WP:NOR, I do not see any original research here. It is a well sourced article and the statements are verifiable. No where are conclusions implied or drawn. It simply consists of sourced and referenced views of a variety of notable personalities. I think WP:OSE should definitely be taken into consideration here. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

You still don't understand what OSE is, it states over and over that whether or not other articles exist is not a good rational for inclusion or deletion, and says "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." which you continue to ignore as you use the existence of criticism articles as your main basis for inclusion. However, since you insist on drawing parallels, let me briefly explain that this is totally different than the criticism articles. The criticism articles are not just compiled lists of everyone who has ever said something bad about Muhammad. They are articles about historical criticism, and as such they actually include views by people on both sides, i.e. they have criticism and they also have defense against and rebuttal of those criticisms when applicable. So your argument that this page is needed to counter balance those is unfounded. You are conflating the criticism pages with attack pages (Which they are not), and then trying to balance them with this purely positive one. The fact is that all this information is redundant as it is covered elsewhere, and the way in which it is being presented is what violates policy. Also, you still have not addressed the fact that "Annemarie Schimmel (1985), And Muhammad is his Messenger - The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety" is cited 39 times in the article, meaning the vast bulk of information in this article is derived from one single source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an oversimplification of my positions. The article in question, Praise and veneration of Muhammad does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NOR. There is no original research, so WP:NOR does not apply. The article is written in an impartial and neutral manner, in which positive perspectives about Muhammad are referenced and given as they are without drawing any conclusions, which means that it does not violate WP:NPOV. This brings us to WP:SYNTH, which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This does not apply here, since no conclusions are drawn. Referenced materials are given as they are and they are stated for what they are. The article itself is a neutral and impartial description of various positive perspectives about Muhammad that have been expressed by notable personalities throughout history. The section of the Criticism's article dealing with history of critics do not include the views of both sides. This is clear over here Criticism_of_Muhammad#Critics, where the perspectives of critics are only given and there are no opposing views given. However, in regards to the section Criticism_of_Muhammad#Points_of_contention, there are opposing views, simply because this is not a historical analysis, rather it involves accusations and contentious points. Since this is not a historical analysis of the topic it makes sense as to why there are views from both sides, however, like I have said previously, there are no opposing sides given on the critics section of the article. Since this article, Praise and veneration of Muhammad only deals with the historical analysis and description of perspectives of notable personalities in regards to positive perspectives about Muhammad and not points of contention, it is in line with other articles on Wikipedia, which brings us to WP:OSE (as discussed in my previous comment). As for Annemarie Schimmel, she is an award winning author, who remains a leading figure in Western scholarship on the topic. The article itself, however, contains 118 references, far more than the 39 that you have indicated. If you read the book, Annemarie Schimmel herself disagrees with some aspects of the praise and veneration, as she mentions in her book, however, from what I see she typically references the quotations for what they are. What you say is not a legitimate reason for deletion. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

You might want to re-read the critics section you just quoted. "A more positive interpretation appears in the 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail." "Oussani states that...the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver" are an "indiscriminate abuse" and are "unsupported by facts: Instead, 19th-century Western scholars...give us a more unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity.". These would clearly appear to be opposing views to the other criticism being presented (i.e. including both criticism by Martin Luthor and criticism by Oussani of that criticism), so there goes your no opposing views point. Also, you claim that the article is unbiased, without synth and original research, yet much of the article is uncited ("The Islamic Golden Age saw the expansion of Islamic civilization throughout much of the world. By 750 AD, Muslim communities could be found from Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China. Praise and veneration of Muhammad has also existed throughout these various communities throughout the Muslim world. Both Muslim philosophers and mystics looked up to Muhammad as their ideal, and many examples of praise and veneration aimed at Muhammad may be found throughout this period."[No citation], "Islam is said to have been preached in China by a relative of Muhammad himself, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas. Muslims have made up a significant part of the Chinese population ever since. During the Ming Dynasty Muhammad was seen by the Chinese Emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang, as the leader of holy figures and as a guide to all creations."[No citation], etc.) and much is cherry picked and mis-represented in a way that violates Synth. For instance, the "Jewish Sources" section consists exclusively of the information that Michael H. Hart (A White Supremacist with no actual ties to the Jewish community or historical Judaism) listed Muhammad as the most influential person in history. Not only is it wrong to attribute this to "Jewish Sources", but to say that this fulfills the criteria of "Praise and Veneration" requires the editor to interpret the word "Influential", as one can be influential in a negative way (i.e. Time Magazine making Hitler Person of the Year in 1938 for the reason "Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today", recognizing his influence yet neither praising nor venerating him), so the interpretation of this label as praise IS original research. This isn't the only example either, just one of the more obvious ones, and indicative of the type of problems that are replete throughout the article. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Depends what you mean by "opposing views". That's not so much an opposing view to criticisms, but rather it may be seen as a reevaluation by certain Western scholars on the topic of a particular criticism made by Martin Luther. Oussani is simply saying that Martin Luther went overboard, he is not praising Muhammad in the passage you have quoted. Similarly we see a similar point given in this article under Praise_and_veneration_of_Muhammad#20th_Century, where it states "movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism opposed what they deemed as the "shirk" or polytheism in the praise and veneration of Muhammad". Clearly this is an opposing view that is given within the article that is against much of the praise and veneration of Muhammad expressed. It may be further elaborated upon. The statement you have quoted in regards to the Islamic Golden Age is totally unrelated to the perspectives of notable personalities that this article focuses on. It seems to be a introductory sentence which may be replaced or rethought out or kept. You are free to challenge any unsourced materials, but this is not an excuse for deletion of the entire article, which is well-sourced and encyclopedic overall. It is also well documented that by 750 AD Muslim communities existed from Al-Andalus in the Iberian Peninsula to China, see here History_of_Islam_in_China. As far as Hart's quote, I am fine with removing it. It doesn't appear to have been in the original version of this article and was added later. I do not find any use in including Hart's ranking, however, this is another topic of discussion and is irrelevant to the majority of the article, which focuses on Muslim perspectives. Therefore it is not an excuse for deletion of the article. Once again, none of the points you have mentioned indicate a valid reason to delete the article. Much of what you have stated is a diversion from what is relevant to the issue of deletion. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Question: Is there no Arabic Wikipedia equivalent to this article? We do have a series of articles on praise of Muhammad as noted in the article guidebox. Every top religious figure is the subject of praise in their denomination. Is there something distinct about Muhammad or Islam that calls for this article, e.g., its not something like Hajj unique to one religion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Interesting question. I think that since Wikipedia English is often the standard bearer of articles and categories, since it consists of more articles than any other language group, is a great place to start such topics. I disagree, however, with the assertion that the articles in the praise category have direct relation to this article. If you look at the praise section, it simply consists of religious practices and does not detail perspectives or views of notable personalities in regards to Muhammad. It simply consists of three articles, Mawlid, Durood, and Naat, which are simply explanations of practices, but do not give proper insight into historical perspectives of prominent personalities in either Muslim traditions or non-Muslim traditions. I also have no problem with articles for other religious figures such as Praise and veneration of Jesus, Praise and veneration of Moses, etc. since articles such as Criticism of Jesus and Moses#Criticism_of_Moses do indeed exist. 142.109.127.36 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtremedood Xtremedood's sock)[reply]

Whoa: The striking of the primary IP commenter here defending the article, as he is also the blocked article creator, makes it difficult for me to assume good faith in the creation of this article. I have created a number of articles on Egyptian movies, and there is always an Arabic language version extant to help me. The lack of an Arabic language article on this topic is good evidence that this is an unnecessary fork article. A regular reader is not going to look for articles dedicating to recounting praise of their top figures, that coverage should be incorporated in the primary articles discussing the religion. Therefore, I recommend this article be Deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: An Arabic language article on this topic has existed since 2 Feb 2006 on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it hasn't been linked to this English language article before. Someone was supposed to link the two articles using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12201780. Now they are linked.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the subject of Article is encyclopedic for two reasons. first is that in this Article collect all description about Muhammad and his personality even from non-Muslim's view point. it is admirable. second is that the article also shows a new dimension of a great person and could inform audiences about different characteristics of the messenger. i also suggest that the name of Article could be changed as descriptions on Muhammad either good or neutral.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If someone nominated the article: criticism of Muhammad for deletion, I am pretty sure that all genuine Muslims would vote for deleting it. On the other hand, if someone nominated the article: Praise and veneration of Muhammad for deletion, I am pretty sure that all genuine non-Muslims would vote for deleting it. This is exactly what we have here! A non-Muslim (apparently with anti-Islam agenda) wants the article Praise and veneration of Muhammad to get deleted because he doesn't like it. This appears to be a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic of the article is very encyclopedic and very popular. There are more than 2 billion spirits from all over the world who define themselves as Muslims and who consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the most praised man ever walked the Earth.

Praising the Prophet Muhammad has existed since the earliest days and it is a fundamental pillar in the Islamic doctrine. God says in the Qur'an:

God is indeed saluting the Prophet Muhammad and his angels are doing so. Oh you have believed! Salute him and greet him with greetings of peace.
— Qur'an 33:56

And indeed, you are O Muhammad of a sublime moral character.
— Qur'an 68:4

I advise you to listen to the very beautiful song of Maher Zain about the Prophet Muhammad: "Ya Nabi Salam Alayka (O Prophet Peace be upon you)" here and also to listen to very beautiful song of Mesut Kurtis "Burdah (Mantle)" here in which he sings: "My LORD convey your salutations and blessings... forever... forever... upon your beloved one the best of all the creation... That is Muhammad lord of the worlds and all the nations."--86.96.60.18 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF and remember to comment on content, not contributors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a personal essay to me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that this article has plenty of issues (WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:QUOTE), but it also has encyclopedic content and meets notability requirements. It should be improved rather than deleted. Eperoton (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said Eperoton. It should be improved rather than deleted.--86.96.60.18 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : it is a subject in its own right. Books have been written specifically on this subject such as Annemarie Schimmel. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Muhammad-His-Messenger-Veneration-Religion/dp/0807841285/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Delete A lot of effort went both into this article and into creating a lot of sockpuppets so the article's creator could argue their case on this AfD, but despite the hard work that went into it, the article is still a quotefarm produced via WP:OR. The topic in and of itself doesn't seem supported, and the article's creator simply decided that they wanted to write an essay and gather various sources for it. A lot of these sources and excessive quotes could simply be added to the Muhammad article (though a lot of them are already there). MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A very hilarious reason for deleting has been provided which should be included in WP:BULLSHIT and reasons for not nominating an article. I literally looked twice to make sure I was reading it right. The thing that is so wrong with this article is that it "Looks like a overtly positive article", yes gentlemen, we should delete an article about veneration because it discusses veneration. and Even if the article is titled "Praise and veneration of XXXXXXX" it should not include positive views? Can someone just shoot me already. Another concern seems to be that the article has WP:PRIMARY and WP:QUOTE issues,,,,,,,,,,,and should therefore be DELETED instead of being improved. I hang my head in shame at this view and would like to say that articles with these issues are to be improved instead of deleted. The topic "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" is encyclopedic in nature and has quite a lot of encyclopedic value and therefore it makes sense. Can the article be improved? YES. Should the article be just wiped off the face of wiki just because there is room for improvement there? NO, and I do hope we do not set a precedent here. Appears to be a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom as he thinks that only topics critical of the subject are allowed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI cannot see how this is an encyclopedic topic. It is a quote farm as described a compilation of all the wonderful things that people have said about Muhammad through the years. So what? All the major religions are based up praise and veneration of their respective prophets, messiahs and of course God or Gods if you prefer. It's an inherent function of what these belief systems are created to do: generate, praise, venerate and yes, deify. I'm more intrigued by the tiny portion at the very end which touches on, all too briefly, the degree to which Muhammad's writing my have influenced other cultures as a lawmaker, etc. But that's the briefest of mentions. Take it to Wikiquote if possible but as for the rest of it, please see Monty Python's Oh Lord! You Are So Big scene. Now, I get that the Criticism of Muhammad article must be galling to some editors who are adherents -- but we cannot let Wikipedia degenerate into for and against articles. We already have Muhammad in Islam and that is sufficient to present his sacred role within Islam. Indeed, perhaps its section entitled "Muslim veneration for Muhammad" could be expanded with some summarized content from this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to ranking made by Michael H. Hart, Muhhamad is most influential person ever lived on Earth. You can read his article. I think creating this "praiseworthy" article on him is worth. Such kind of articles can be made on Jesus Christ and Buddha too. There is an article named Criticism of Muhammad, actually when any article has section named "Criticism/Controversies" then such sections do not adhere to neutral POV and content of such sections should be integrated with article as a whole. (You can see such kind of template here). But in Muhammad's case forget about "Criticism" section we have whole article named Criticism of Muhammad. So to neutralize these things if someone has created this "Praise" article for Muhammad then it should be allowed in same way "Criticism" article was allowed. --Human3015^TALK 22:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Shawn in Montreal. It is nothing but violation of WP:OR and the great amount of quote farming makes it very hard to understand that what is the actual purpose of the article. Also agree that Muhammad in Islam is accurately enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:16, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surabhi Santosh[edit]

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

Too soon. Sources have single mention, no significant coverage, searching found lots of social media. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly seems solidly notable with only three films, none of them actually suggesting she's notable herself. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:41, 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 03:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Resource Foundation[edit]

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

Not finding sources that they are notable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Immunity_Resource_Foundation#Awards_and_honours_.28Meditel.29 enough? Bickeyboard (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. According to the article and their website, this 'non-incorporated charity' has been loaned the archive of a company. Now that company may be notable for winning awards, but not the charity. Perhaps this is an exaggerated comparison, but if I own an award-winning book, does that make me notable, or the author? Blythwood (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that would be a merge into Continuum magazine. It has to be clear that IRF inherited the archive of Coninuum (which was notable at its time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickeyboard (talk • contribs)

The nominations for film awards show that the documentary is (possibly) notable. (I say "possibly", because those nominations look pretty minor to me – although I'm no expert in that area.) The information about the documentary says nothing at all about this foundation; the information doesn't even belong in the article about the foundation. (I've just removed it.) In Wikipedia jargon, it's called WP:NOTINHERITED.
I don't understand why anyone should care whether IRF inherited the archive of Continuum, but it's not technically necessary to merge the articles if that's the goal. You could just go write a new sentence in the article about the magazine that says something to the effect that when everyone at Continuum died from AIDS, their papers were sent to this foundation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting scams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If the article is promotional, it has to be re-written as NPOV, not deleted. Alternative views can be notable too, in the same way as Oprah Winfrey is not less notable just for promoting any crazy pseudoscience that could increase the number of viewers.Bickeyboard (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote after reviewing policy. Any content within the article can be integrated in the existing articles.Bickeyboard (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — Bickeyboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It was written as NPOV, the nomination for deletion is based on bias.Mo79 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mo79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - The article was not NPOV, and I still believe it has to be improved under this aspect. Bickeyboard (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note, for context, that Mo79 was paid to write the article we're discussing and is its principal author. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see evidence of notability. In addition, this organisation describes its purpose as providing "information base on the Scientific and Medical Issues challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis" - i.e. HIV/AIDS conspiracy theories, making it also WP:FRINGE (so it would need a major rewrite to make that clear even if it was kept), but notability is itself enough to make me vote delete. Blythwood (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - charities in the UK are regulated by the Charity Commission - search its site (I don't think I can link the entry) and it says "removed-ceased to exist". Some of their older financials are listed here. So it's an ex-charity, which did a negligible amount of activity. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update - the Charity Commission info is here -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they don't seem to be prominent or notable enough AIDS denialists so as to require an article. - Nunh-huh 18:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They deny AIDS thoroughly, isn't that prominent?Bickeyboard (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's ignorance. What makes something (even ignorance) prominent is that it is a subject widely covered by reliable well-regarded media: newspapers, magazines, books, etc. "Immunity Resource Foundation" is not widely covered by reliable well-regarded media, which is how Wikipedia determines notability. - Nunh-huh 18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete no reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) This is actually the nominator himself. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did not realize that one was not supposed to nominate and weight in Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia under WP:ORG, it must be possible to find at least two unrelated, independent reliable sources that provide "significant coverage" of the organization (NB not about documentaries that were made before the foundation's creation, or sources about the relationship between HIV and AIDS, etc.) – and at least one of those reliable sources needs to be from something other than a neighborhood newspaper (under WP:AUD). I'm thoroughly familiar with the guideline, and I'm pretty good at searching for sources. I've come up completely empty handed. I encourage the creator to read the second paragraph at WP:BFAQ#WHY and explain to his/her client that without sources about the foundation itself, it's not possible to have an article about the organization itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perhaps misleading as it is not a charity (charities in the UK have to be registered so you cant have a non-incorporated charity). The charities commission say it ceased to exist. At best a non-notable campaign group. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Michibata[edit]

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

Delere: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 03:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not that familiar with Japanese models, but Michibata is quite famous outside the modeling business, appearing quite a lot on TV and in the entertainment press. The current article has many citations already, but I am not sure how good Model Press is as a source. So here are some citations from clearly reliable sources, mainly the mainstream entertainment press: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], etc. She thus has quite a lot of press exposure. I am not sure on what grounds the nominator asserts that she is not notable, but clearly she passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She exists mostly somewhere between Japanese fashion magazines and tabloid press along with her two sisters, but she passes WP:ENT in Japan. Jun Kayama 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of info in Japanese sources. Jacona (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely if all this coverage is considerable and acceptable and I would've even closed this as such but, as Japanese subjects are not my closely known areas, I'll have it open for any available comments. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunai Joseph[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:38, 20 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) 16:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro match Spiderone 11:31, 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.

[1] Like a rolling stone

[1]