Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 December	24 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leanplum[edit]

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

Insufficent references for notability of this company, although it may at first look otherwise. Every one of them is essentially a press release, a uncritical report of an interview where the company presidents tells what he wants to. Thats giving them a place to advertise, not writing a news story, and even the WSJ does it. No source is completely reliable for notability -- it is necessary to look at the actual article. The basic policies are NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY--if the WSJ is going to give a story to everyone who receives $5 million in funding, they're indiscriminate. WP:GNG is a guideline. WP:NOT is policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches found some links at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing outstanding enough to suggests a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and fails WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and fails WP:SIGCOV. - tucoxn\^talk 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DinuraCreations[edit]

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

Importance of the article and errors in the References. It is seems that this article is created for the promote of DinuraCreations (Some kind of Organization). In the References, Reference no 1 doesn't work. Reference no 2 is about Indian territory. References no 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not indicate clear relation with the Subject of the article. L Manju (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This proposal for deletion could be a possible result of an edit war. it is important to do edits with the neutral point of view. But not for personal beliefs. A new editor needs a reasonable period of time to improve an article. Dinuraeditions (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attention please..

The user L Manju may have proposed the article for deletion merely as a personal matter. That user doing destructive edits that do not obey the wikipedia policy of editing. Please refer 15 November 2015 for evidence. -- Jetpet (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the current sources are not noticeable of even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's not for promoting purposes and subject is about a non-profit organization located in Sri Lanka with a good notability enough to be kept on wikipedia. Dinuraeditions (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs solid sources though such as in-depth third-party news, magazines and journals sources. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Reasons;

01. I found this subject created as a redirect page to Music of Sri Lanka that was possibly given unnecessary weight to it. And then I performed a google search to find out any notability of it. There was a reasonably good coverage to assume a rough consensus. Merge or redirect was not fairly applicable to this subject. That was why I decided to add contents and improve it as a separate article within the policies and regulations of the encyclopedia. Thus the major suggestion of the nominator is naturally disputed because I have done the work having a good faith.
02. The first three references are directly related to the subject. The rest of references were useful to construct the consensus. Claiming that a reference does not work may not be a strong reason to delete an article. At the moment when I added the all references worked perfectly and I gathered the information through those references and some other local newspapers in their printed versions. All references are separated and independent from Wikipedia. I, a Wikipedia user, cannot be responsible for their behaviour in time being.
Hereby, I honestly believe that letting this article remained on Wikipedia would not harm its encyclopedic values. Jetpet (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems somebody wants free publicity for their organization or site. --Lee (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as currently sourced, does not meet WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up enough to help their notability. Also, the assertion of the nom having ulterior motives is not warranted: The nom re-added a prod tag after it was removed. They then re-added it a second time, and then subsequently self-reverted. Discussion on the nom's talk page indicate they were unaware of the no re-adding clause of PROD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brytus[edit]

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

Former American football player and MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NMMA. There are mentions of his name as a college football player, but I found only routine sports coverage. He never appeared in a regular-season NFL game. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment College football players can qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. I found this feature on Brytus and this story from the The Beaver County Times. There's also this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette regarding Brytus' high school career. Items like this probably don't help because it's from the Pitt student newspaper and is arguably lacking in independence. I would prefer to see a bit more before I opine whether he passes GNG. Will try to take a deeper look later. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to be a bodyguard for a notable person currently (Austin Malone). I suspect that he is on the cusp in all likelihood but definitely not an instant Prod to be sure. Collect (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the PROD. I haven't ever thought of PROD as an instant process, but I can understand the need for careful consideration and discussion. It's sometimes difficult for people to distinguish between significant coverage and the routine coverage that can be uncovered for almost any D1 college starter. With that said, if it's being argued that social media/blog/non-RS mentions of bodyguard work could lead to notability, I'm having a hard time getting behind that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bodyguard to whoever would not by itself confer notability - WP:NOTINHERITED.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that we've established anything beyond routine coverage. They've never won or competed for a title falling short of WP:ATHLETE and WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:NMMA. Notability can't be inherited from who he is guarding. Jakejr (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EricEnfermero clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2010 FIFA World Cup. If I understand this correctly, the end result should be all of the following merges (which have already been performed) and replaced by redirects to preserve history (which I'm about to take care of).

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches[edit]

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

The list is redundant for 2010 FIFA World Cup. Let's also consider List of 2006 FIFA World Cup matches, List of 2002 FIFA World Cup matches, List of 1998 FIFA World Cup matches, List of 1994 FIFA World Cup matches, and List of 1990 FIFA World Cup matches; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This may seem like a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but personally I believe that a chronological list of the matches at this tournament is just as valuable as a list organised by group. I'm not sure why the 2014 list was deleted, but this is something I think should exist in conjunction with the rest of our coverage of major tournaments. – Pee Jay 22:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the exact table is already present in the main article. I've gone ahead and done the same for the 2010 World Cup page. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the proposer of the AfD for the 2014 article, I support this as the logic is the same. Keep in mind I had to move the content from to the main World Cup article (it wasn't present already, unlike for the 2014 case), so I wouldn't automatically support deleting the lists for the 1990-2006 World Cup matches unless they are effectively merged as well. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the simple reason that it is redundant. I suppose it could be a redirect since it is a plausible search term. Spiderone 13:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all following the same logic as [[1]]. Aspirex (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete all - Per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches. These are best chronicled in their respective main tournament pages. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per past consensus as highlighted by Jkudlick. Giant Snowman 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Now that User:Udonknome has performed a merge, we have to keep the article history around for attribution purposes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond redemption[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Majority of sources listed are self-published or WP:Citing IMDb. Drm310 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brought up nothing that would show that it passes NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

Chinese:(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)

Temp Delete per being TOO SOON and not (yet) meeting WP:NF. Allow resurrection when inclusion criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Sourcing is far too reliant on IMDb, blogs and other unreliable sources, with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown. The fact that the introduction hinges too strongly on claims about what the film could be billed as doesn't help much, either; for us to claim such a thing in Wikipedia, we would need to find a reliable source which explicitly states that it is that. No prejudice against future recreation if the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more to add than the above editors. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Reliable Press[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for deletion because I just can't see where this publisher is notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. It exists and it sells things, but I just can't see where it's notable enough for an entry - a search brings up little.

There's also a likely COI here and while I hate to WP:BITE the newbies, I just can't see where this publisher would pass notability guidelines - most publishers do not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the article asserts that it's published notable plays, these awards do not seem to have been given to the publisher itself per se and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by them publishing things by notable persons, although it does make it more likely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe the claim was that they have published plays by notable playwrights, but not notable plays by those playwrights. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 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 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy later if needed as the best my searches found were only trivial passing mentions, nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be much cataloged by Google. There's a trivial mention in a book, and a false positive in an archived newspaper, but that's all I saw. Maybe this could be redirected to the theater, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Westmaas[edit]

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

The person is non-notable, as IMDb is unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found some links at News, Books and browsers but nothing to suggest a noticeably better notable article. FWIW, I actually was going to tag this as A7 but I asked a few other users about it including Eatmeimanazuki, but he tagged it before I could. If no speedy could've deleted this, I would've used PROD before AfD in any case. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to be considered as notable.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tripsane[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Unable to find any reliable sources to support notability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like a puff piece with references to Dat Piff, not reliable. Could not find significance coverage in RS to verify notibility. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm also skeptical about some of the claims, which don't appear to be supported by even the weak sources given; thus, claims to notability aren't terribly credible (I'm the same user who requested speedy deletion). 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC71:F4C1:90A0:3793 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim of "4 hit singles" is sourced to Amazon and iTunes, which only list items for sale, and make no comment on their status as a hit.[2] The claim of coverage by Hip Hop Weekly is sourced to the main web page of the magazine, not to any specific article, and a search on the site for 'Tripsane' shows no matches. In my mind, these were the only sources given that speak to notability, and they've both come up wanting. Willondon (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MusikAnimal.Lacks reliable third party sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as there's hardly even much here to suggest at least minimal better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Never close so early but this clearly is a bad faith nomination! - Cubbie15fan - Please don't nominate 25 MINUTES after creation and you should be following WP:BEFORE!, Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly DiPucchio[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:AUTHOR Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author's work has been on the NYT best seller list many times and has won or been nominated for many awards. I have already identified three sources about her. I believe she is notable and has been listed as an author who needed an entry created for her on the Project: Women Writers list. --LibraryGurl (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IRA Teacher's Choice selection, ALA Notable book selection, 2-time NY Times Best Seller's list, Gwen Frostic Award. Books translated into both Spanish and French, which would not happen if she weren't considered notable. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also pretty telling that nominator nominated within 30 minutes of creation. Clearly article was still being developed and that nominator did not do any verification of notability whatsoever. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One entry I made this past week was nominated for deletion within 5 minutes after I created it as I was adding content. The editor removed it but clearly some editors are moving on these requests far too quickly. Is there a time frame policy for nominating articles for deletion? --LibraryGurl (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I just started adding sources to the article: there are a ton more which I'll try to add today. She's been reviewed by major journals and newspapers. The nominator did not do even a preliminary WP:BEFORE, as Google News turns up many sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point, the article has several reliable sources establishing notability, plus book awards and nominations are notable. Fuzchia (talk) 21:09, 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 Closed. We've already had this discussion. If you want to dispute the result, got to deletion review Calton | Talk 04:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)[edit]

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

Let's have a discussion about whether or not this segment is notable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have nominated this article for deletion, but only for procedural purposes. I believe this segment meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and do not want the article to be deleted, but I've nominated it for deletion to start a second AfD discussion. The first AfD was for a different version of the article which was specifically about the mascot Jeff the Diseased Lung. I was surprised to see the first discussion result in a merge, because the nomination itself was flawed and others suggested notability was apparent. However, the article was merged, which I later expanded and made more inclusive. It now focuses on the segment in its entirety, and not just the mascot. With the segment's popularity, PMI's response, criticism of PMI's response, and praise for Oliver's marketing abilities, I believe this article clearly illustrates notability. I requested feedback on the article's talk page, and specifically requested a new AfD discussion instead of redirecting, but my request was not honored. So, I am nominating my own article for deletion for procedural purposes, not because I believe it should actually be deleted. I look forward to a discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of state visits made by President Tarja Halonen of Finland[edit]

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

presidents do visits all the time. Most of these visits would have got routine coverage. The most notable visits should be included in the president's own article. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains no reliable sources. The notable visits that were covered in reliable sources could, as LibStar noted, be added to President Tarja Halonen's BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bad as the one for Pakistan, Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Moen[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. sst✈^(discuss) 08:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. I think the subject is notable, but... the article would be much better if it were rewritten; it appears to have been written by Mr. Moen himself. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing evidence of notability. At the moment the sources cited are: the website of a company owned by the subject, Myspace, some videos on an advertising site, a blog, material written by the subject, a short profile at the site of a film festival the subject attended (probably written by him or someone associated with him) and a trivial mention in a post about a short video directed by the subject. All non-independent, unreliable or not significant coverage, so WP:GNG isn't passed, and I couldn't find anything significantly better when I looked. Hut 8.5 15:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the above, also I can not find exception under clauses similar to those in WP:TOOSOON. Aeonx (talk) 16:54, 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 delete per G5. The G5 tag was previously removed by an experienced editor on the grounds that the creator hadn't been proven to be a sock, but that's no longer the case (they've been blocked). I think it would be perfectly acceptable to readd a speedy deletion tag that was removed by an obvious IP sock of the creator. Hut 8.5 15:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYPC-FM[edit]

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

Speedy delete. Created by a blocked sockpuppet of Jimlantabanao (Tabanaojr.jimlan243). G5 applies but it was disputed by the IP socks. Sixth o f March 12:35, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Pharmacy[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very unremarkable national pharmacy chain. Article reads like an advert. Seasider91 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and is Promotional and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:ORG, and nothing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7 by GB fan (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IORTA[edit]

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

Unremarkable organization, only external link is to their website. No references to assert notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 11:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1 - only proposing merging (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living people[edit]

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

There are too many Oldest People articles with overlapping lists upon lists interwoven with lists. This article should be deleted and redirected to Oldest people#Verified oldest living people which is a section that used to contain the top 10 names on this list instead of the roughly 50 names on the longer list. No data will be lost and the presentation is the same exactly,just as a section of an article that previously contained a preview of the list. This gives the readers a comprehensive look at the topic rather then sending them to page after page of lists sliced and diced. Also the title Oldest people is more intuitive and succinct then List of oldest living people. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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}}.

Notification: The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Only an experienced editor should consider closing this, carefully considering the weight of the policy arguments.

Keep Sufficient interest to retain a separate article. Continued attempts to delete/combine these articles is counterproductive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So delete the top 10 list from the Oldest people article then? We should not duplicate the info on two pages. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is exactly the kind of article specified by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists; No legitimate argument for deletion has been offered and no policy-based argument has been suggested by the nominator to justify deletion. Inherently, there will be material that appears in different places in such situations and any issues with potential overlap with the article Oldest people should be addressed by consensus at Talk:Oldest people, not here. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Alansohn is right on the mark on this. Jacona (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is one of the most important about longevity. A list of the oldest living people deserves a its own page. The fact that there is a repeat of SOME names doesn't make it a duplication!!!--Dakota86x (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 50% of Oldest people Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and updated material over lots of years. I am very sorry but I cannot see any reason for deletion.--37.4.93.37 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list should clearly be retained somewhere: it's encyclopedic information many readers will be interested in, has clear criteria for inclusion, isn't particularly long, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. The nominator doesn't offer any rationale for deletion beyond a preference to have the list as part of another article. If we decide to do that then the content will need to be merged/redirected rather than deleted. Hut 8.5 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page is extremely helpful and easy to understand. I use it on an almost daily basis. Most encyclopedic. JKSD93 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see the article is significant enough to remain as a separate article . Well referenced and does meet Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Remi143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per all of the above plus I'll express similar confusion as to why this is here. Artw (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it is rather pointless to have two identical lists -- or virtually so, for editors might be easily update one and not the other. We don't even have a {{main}} template on Oldest_people#Verified_oldest_living_people to indicate to readers that there's a duplicate list somewhere else. I think the nominator is perfectly justified within WP:MERGEREASON in proposing this. When his redirect was reversed, perhaps the the next step should have been to apply a Merge tag and generate discussion that way. Instead, he's chosen to take this to Afd. While people may disagree with that method, I think the basic logic is sound. We don't want to have two parallel lists of the same thing, especially now that both lists are the same length, at 50+ names. ~~Support~~ Redirect and merge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets all the applicable policies and guidelines, and is a valid spinout from the main article which should have the aforementioned "main" template added to point to this. In all honesty this seems like a nomination on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree and am in the small minority. But I'd say the nomination meets WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is policy. I can't see why we're committing ourselves to two parallel lists going forward and if kept I daresay each list would need to have a  alert informing editors to make their updates to the other list, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a spinout, it's the original list. The content is only in Oldest people because the nominator added it shortly before starting this AfD. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 100% of the information, complete with sources, would be hosted within the Oldest people article - as it is right now already. There is no attempt to delete the information, only an attempt to present it within the Oldest people article which is a better title. A number of commentators here appear confused, thinking this is an attempt to delete the info. It is only an attempt to get everything on one well named page rather then having the same info on two different pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and per WP:SPINOUT, we do not appear to have reached a size on the main article where a split off list is necessary or an aid to simple navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and more thing - and this is just a question: if I'm an editor who's put time into List of oldest living people... don't I want the maximum number of readers reading it? Because that's what'll happen if it's the centrepiece of the main article, as proposed. That's how I see it, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is only for proposing that a page be deleted, as the name implies. If you want content to be merged into another article then you should not be using this process. Indeed merging the content elsewhere would prevent the page from being deleted because the page history would be required for attribution (which is legally necessary). This page is not a spinoff, the material was only added to Oldest people by Legacypac shortly before this AfD was started. If the suggestion is to have this content remain in Oldest people then we cannot delete this page anyway. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then please block Legacypac. He's a man on a mission who has nothing better to do then deleting oldest people Pages. He already destroyed Living Knights Cross Holders now Oldest Living people. Whats next? He must be stopped!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the whole history of the article is lost when it is deleted. I use the history regularly as well to see who things developed. This Legacypac wants to change everything about oldest people what has developed over years. At the Living Knights Cross Holders Afd page he talked the same shit. Nothing will be lost. All will be merged in another article. Now the whole information is lost. Its enough!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is misleading as a look at this editor's talk page shows. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dangermouse600]. I am seeking a merge which is perfectly acceptable at AfD and a common outcome. No history will be lost here, and Longevity is an area that needs a lot of cleanup with masnu overlapping and conflicting lists. See link to the ArbComm case for details. Legacypac (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does my talk page show? That you alleged to help to save the information? Even the User page of czolgosz where he tried to save the list was searched an destroyed. There was and is no need for cleanup here. Go cleanup somewhere else!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dangermouse, please keep in mind that our priority here is the readers not our own internal politics and squabbles. Arguing against a merge because you want to preserve the edit history as a record of who contributed what to the standalone list (if I understand you correctly) is a wrong way of looking at it. I'd repeat that the only important question is what's the simplest and easiest for readers. That said, if this Afd fails I'd suggest that Legacypac tags the list for a merge to allow a discussion. It may be a waste of time, but perhaps some of the opposition here is indeed a product of so many Afds? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is merged then we would have to keep the edit history, if only as a redirect. This is a legal requirement of the licence that Wikipedia uses and isn't up for discussion. While "merge" is a perfectly valid outcome of an AfD, starting an AfD isn't an appropriate thing to do if you don't want the content to be deleted. Hut 8.5 18:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, of course. I've changed my !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was correct to blank the article and redirect it to Oldest people#Verified oldest living people since the oldest living people already have been listed there. It is unnecessary to have two articles referring to the same thing so please revert/undo this edit. Redirecting to Oldest people is correct, the oldest living people are listed there and that's enough. Björn Bergman 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Information is duplicated because Legyacypac duplicated it before he nominated this article for deletion. Do you understand this? On Oldest people are too much lists and too much edits, what makes it hard to follow every change if you are only interested in living people. Oldest living people was some weeks ago a much bigger article. It was systematically shot down since then. I will no longer accept this salami-tactic of deleting all information about oldest people.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no one wants to explain why there are so many discrepancies across the overlapping lists [[3]] [4] so consolidation is the answer. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have to ask: once your redirect was reverted, why didn't you simply apply {{merge}} tags and begin the discussion that way? It would have had a vastly better chance of getting you the result you wanted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the off wiki coordinated efforts of single purpose accts are harder to manage on a talk page. This is an area with some very dedicated POV pushers. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location inference[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is unfortunate. It's not a notability or a copyvio problem, if anything it's WP:COI. This is a novel, but growing topic. It's a good candidate for WP. The problem is that this article is written by the author of its one cited reference.

This article doesn't need deletion. What it needs is editing by other, more experienced, editors in order to broaden its base of sources and to expand its coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be closed, since "needs work" is not a valid metric to define "fails WP:GNG". Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick check indicates that there is more than sufficient coverage for this to be a notable topic. A {{trout}} to the nominator for failing WP:BEFORE; a lack of references in an article does not establish a lack of notability, for non-BLPs references need not be in the article (they should be but it's not required) - they need only exist, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a GNG pass. A quick Google search revealed numerous academic sources. sst✈^(discuss) 14:31, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per consensus Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India[edit]

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

Non-notable award function article with no claims of notability or any importance given by secondary -tertiary sources. Also seems to have been given only once in 2013 from majority of Google hits results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A) being somewhat too soon to renominate this sourced article six days after the AFD close of December 1st, and B) the presumptive error the nominator made in his search, in that this is NOT a one-time 2013 event. It was easy enough to find it recurring in 2015. Needs expansion and sourcing... not deletion out of neglect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A): The previous AfD was closed as WP:NPASR which means no prejudice against speedy renomination. B): Non-recurring-ness was a subordinate clause followed after "also" in the AfD rationale; lets hear arguments on main clause first. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPASR means that someone could renominate, but not that someone absolutely should renominate until it is deleted or renominate in order to perhaps encourage improvement by others. It seems that secondary independent reliable sources articles DO speak about the awards.Pinkvilla Times of India and many others... and your assertion that it "seems to have been given only once in 2013" has been proven incorrect. It seems that WP:GNG is met. The article simply needs improvement per the many sources, not deletion because the wished-for work by others has not yet been done. WP:IMPERFECT WP:WIP WP:DEADLINE Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it could be renominated, I have renominated it. Hence that should not be a problem to keep discussing. Pinkvilla is a gossip column and not RS. Your TOI search dump isn't helpful either; for example the first link over there now is Oval Office choice signals prez intent, nothing to do with our subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have chosen to point out weaknesses in your deletion rationale and thus contest your reason for deletion. No one commented six days ago. Now someone has. What you forgot to mention above is that Pinkvilla provides authored NEWS as well as admitted gossip, and I really doubt an announcement of 2015 award nominations would be seen as "gossip" even by deletionists. If you disagree, take your thoughts on its suitability to WP:RSN and prepare to be over-ruled.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If gossip websites are the only sources an award is being covered in, that speaks very highly of its notability. For anything to be notable on WP, it has to be considered notable by sec-tert sources and not simply be publishing events-in-the-town like listings. Also, having admitted that Pinkvilla is a gossip column, how do you claim that this website publishes encyclopedic stuff not giving undue weightage to trivia, which basically is their job to do by definition? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Indian media sources definitely handle themselves differently and more colorfully than do most in the United States, I have not heard that Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, Scoop News, NickALive, Parda Phash, MxM, NewsWala, India West, or even Indian Television are sources with the "reputation" of being gossip-mongers. And so with extensive independent third-party coverage of the initial event it met WP:GNG for a suitable stub article. And now that there is a strong expectation that it will recur in 2015, we have a stub that can be kept and encouraged to be expanded further and further sourced. I might even have considered a redirect and proper merge to a new section at Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards to cover the Indian version of the awards, but as the now-recurring Indian event has sourcable notability that seemed like a cheat to our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you haven't heard about these sources being not-quite-upto-the-mark then you haven't heard enough. Many editors at INB do not always trust TOI for their various contradictory publications or lousy editing or articles that aim more for webhits and not readers. Your TOI link about Quantico isn't helpful in our subject case. Rest all websites, BH, scoopnews, blogspot.in, Pardaphash, mxmindia, newswala, are not considered RS, especially indiantelevision unless you can prove how they have been considered so at some RSN discussion. Even if one reads these articles one can never find the award being considered notable but is more coverage of glitterati, which can't be a foundation for establishing notability of the award. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind... context and source and WP:USEBYOTHERS affects perception of reliability. You continue to concentrate only on Pinkvilla as if it only provided "gossip" rather than accepting or addressing the fact that Pinkvilla also offers authored Bollywood "news". Be sure to tell WP:RSN that Pinkvilla information was not made as an assertion of notability and was itself attributed by them to their source NickIndia.com. And please, no where above did I make any "claim that this website publishes encyclopedic stuff not giving undue weightage to trivia, which basically is their job to do by definition." Heck, even The New York Times contains portions which are known as unreliable without that affecting acceptability of its reliability for news. So please do not attribute to me that which I did not say or I will see you at WP:ANI. I already suggested you take your complaint to WP:RSN, but you continue to argue here. If we end up at WP:ANI, be sure to state that I made no assertion that a source toward verifiability gave any indicator of notability, and that I only used Pinkvilla here at AFD to address your implying that the awards were a one-year-only event, and that I included links to others [5] to show that the topic has indeed been spoken of in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "authored news". Am sure even if a bot collects random info from all webpages, compiles them and publishes, it becomes "authored". And I never said you said so but was saying that by calling Pinkvilla a notable source you automatically imply that it publishes stuff that is not encyclopedically undue. Anyways, btw, Pinkvilla's article lists nominations of top 3 categories. Dunno why they would publish only the top three categories which have more celebrity names. Maybe it has nothing to do with grabbing webhits, which happens to be their way of living?! or maybe only those three categories were nominated that year?! And what about the 2015 wins? Nominations are published in March and its December now. The "recurring" factor seems to be damn slow here.
Also, please concentrate on establishing the "notability of the award". I have seen you derail one such AfD with lots of ORs and that tactic failed badly. Am no expert in onwiki-civility/incivility issues and have been quite tolerant with various personal attacks directed towards me in various cases. So excuse me if this is wrong but you are now on verge of WikiBullying by saying "prepare to be over-ruled [at RSN]" or threatening to complain at ANI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinkvilla is not considered notable, let aside reliable, at AfD and is deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided by Michael shows the subject passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? clpo13_(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many sources can be found on google and official page has awards history. Daan0001 (talk) 10:27, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel[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)

A young man who appears to have written a couple of pieces for the local news. The references do not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 16:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best but no drafting and userfying as I'm not seeing a better article for this anytime soon and there's nothing currently to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as self-promotional, and clearly non-notable. The only sources in a search on that name are the subject's blog post. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Scr★pIron^IV 20:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, a search brings up nothing useable. The article creator appears to be improving wikipedia's coverage of their locality, which is admirable, but may give rise to conflict of interest issues. A substantial contributor to the article may also be/or closely associated with the article subject (see here [6] and here User:Khesrawkakakhail). The tone of the article is highly promotional, the removal of which along with unsubstantiated statements, will just about leave a blank page. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep The page is now in its initial stage. The author might collect any sources or trying to get any sources. I am not favor of its deletion as far as its notability concerns. Here in Pakistan, every Wikipedian faces such challenges that either their pages are declared to be orphan or lack of notability. I recommend this page should be kept as normal. With the passage of time, its issues would be cleared. Thank you all. AQHayat (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel is not just a writer but also an artist. Some of his artistic creativity have been added on his page. These pieces of art art are strong witness of his effort. So, the page must not be deleted. Bashar (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN Both posts above from "Bashar" and "AQHayat" are actually the main contributor (and subject?) of the article, User:Khesrawkakakhail - and very very poorly forged, at that. Scr★pIron^IV 20:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ScrapIronIV! I was using the signature "AQHayat" but I changed it into "Bashar" just now. From time to time I change my signature, that's not a big issue for anyone. Anyhow, I was talking about Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel, if you will visit this page, you might see the artistic work of him. Thanks. Bashar (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Contributing more than once to an AfD under different names? Right. That was totally legit. Scr★pIron^IV 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep The person is seemed to be a notable writer as I visited the references given below the page. The person is keen in the field of Art. He has created his own work i.e Calligraphy, single pencil sketch and multi-colored drawing. I think this page should be kept strongly. 39.33.46.21 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..and from an IP address - if it wasn't so obvious it would be worth starting an SPI here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:Articles for deletion/Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel (2nd nomination) has been procedurally closed as a duplicate of this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userify: via WP:PAK - this is an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I understand that there might be more local coverage but I can not comment about it until I see it. The WP:BURDEN is on the creator(s). It needs to come through AFC and that too after establishing notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userify I see zero issue with giving an article more time. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is no any doubt about the writer. so must be kept. Ghizeri (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Ghizeri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should also be noted that there is blatant sockpuppetry here. CatcherStorm ^talk 11:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope no one will actually considering drafting and userfying this as there's obviously nothing noticeably acceptable to act as such. This is easily something that can be restarted when better, with none of its current material. Simply having a few apparently local news items is unlikely enough to actually convince drafting and userfying and, at best, I would only suggest it if actually needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Subject is 23 years and is upcoming and currently fails the notabilty criteria .It may be case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG, and not close to passing Artist criteria. No point in userfying either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jereme Tendler[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY's criteria. Played exclusively in Division II college hockey, the low minors and the semi-pro British league. Ravenswing 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically he passes WP:NHOCKEY by being a First-Team All Star in the EIHL. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso:, no he does not pass NHOCKEY. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. The EIHL does not satisfy criteria #4 of being a first-team all-star. Joeykai (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice someone slid some different wording in there. Generally all professional leagues fell under #4 that weren't listed in the top 2. That was sort of the point of #4, to catch all other pro leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection it looks like that league was actually removed without discussion so its been re-added. It is easily as high a level as a number of the leagues on that list. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so. Ice hockey receives little to almost no media coverage in the UK, and its leagues tend to be ephemeral. By contrast, the Norwegian and Italian top leagues are 80 and 90 years old respectively. Ice hockey is Norway's second most popular team sport, and the Norwegian team consistently plays at the Championship tier of the Worlds, while Italy plays in the second rung. Ravenswing 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can take that discussion to the talk page there. I can certainly entertain the idea that its not a super high league. But the British leagues get considerably more international coverage than Italy does but perhaps domestically it doesn't. Either way this keep is a weak keep from me. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although in looking on the BBC site I am now finding some articles about a drug situation so I am betting I can find more references. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple, there were more easily found in google news. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just read NHockey and it doesn't have a settled or coherent position - as the above discussion demonstrates. So we're back to GNG and he doesn't pass. Szzuk (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joeykai and Szzuk clearly Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Lad[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:BIO. No independent sources are available to source this WP:BLP. jps (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - The author in question has published a large amount of works that are used as primary texts in the field of Ayurveda. Admittedly, there are few sources outside of this field that would ever mention him (as would be expected) but he is featured in publications such as Yoga Journal regularly and his books are utilized by accredited universities in the United States. This seems to be spill-over from a general objection against ayurveda as a notable alternative medicine. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't qualify as independent sources and ayurveda isn't a field, it's a pseudoscientific alternative medicine modality based on interpretations of certain traditional healing arts from India and various religious beliefs. As such, we need to adhere to the standards of WP:FRINGEBLP if we are going to declare that this person is notable. We need sources which are not tied to the ayurveda closed shop. jps (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your claim against ayurveda is accurate or fair. I would say it is full of exaggerated claims and less than thorough in its method. Not being a science doesn't mean "it isn't a field" of study. Is anthropology not a field? The word pseudoscience is knowingly being used as derogatory term against all philosophies outside of the scientific worldview. But that is definitely a seperate matter. For Vasant Lad "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner." I can show you many course syllabi with his books such as [[7]]. In a brief search on JSTOR you will find he comes up as a citation and representative figure for ayurveda in publications both promoting and detracting from ayurveda. They are all on alternative medicine, but that is the only field where you could expect to find his work discussed. Besides coming up in magazines about yoga and ayurveda like Yoga Journal, L.A. Yoga, etc he is quoted in:

CHAPTER THREE: We Are All One: Holistic Thought-Forms within Indigenous Societies Indigeneity and Holism, Author(s): Farah Shroff, Source: Counterpoints, Vol. 379, Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A READER (2011), pp. 53-67, Published by: Peter Lang AG, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980884 Accessed: 15-12-2015 22:51 UTC

Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Gregory A. Crawford, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Summer 2003), pp. 296-306, Published by: American Library Association, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20864054

It appears he's mentioned in "Asymmetrical Conversations: Contestations, Circumventions, and the Blurring of Therapeutic Boundaries (Epistemologies of Healing)" 1st Edition by Harish Naraindas (Editor), Johannes Quack (Editor), William S. Sax (Editor). This is likely a critical source.

and "Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our Worlds" by George J. Sefa Dei (Editor), Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg (Editor), Budd L. Hall (Editor)

How great that an author named Quack edited a book about blurring therapeutic boundaries! I'm sure more can be found easily, but as you say: it is tricky to find independent sources for these somewhat insular topics. And being so frequently published its easier to find books by him than about him. But within the notable field of ayurveda (which you can study at the university level in many developed countries), be it accurate or not, he is widely held to be a prominent figure. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources you list above come close to the WP:FRIND ideal: Asymmetrical Conversations and Indigenous Knowledges. In Asymmetrical Knowledge, he is mentioned in two lists of British Ayurveda practitioners and there is absolutely nothing said about him to establish his notability (which is what this discussion is about). He is mentioned only once in Indigenous Knowledges, on p. 227, as the author of reference they quote (this not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I appreciate your work towards trying to find independent sources. Indeed, these two books you cite are much closer to what is required than anything else. But they still don't pass the threshold as they basically are just passing mention. jps (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: If your rationale for deletion is that Aurveda is a fringe theory, you should AfD that article first. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE as to why your request doesn't make sense. jps (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep world-renowned Ayurvedic physician Vasant Lad, It would be appropriate to describe 68-year-old Dr Vasant Lad as India’s ambassador of Ayurveda to the US. Countless books and seminars. Academically qualified. A film has been made on him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The DNA India piece is the closest to being worthwhile in our discussion of notability. It is an interesting profile, but I don't see it as clearly establishing notability. Still, if the article is kept, I would expect that that piece more than any other be used to provide details of biographical points. It doesn't speak to the notability of the subject, however. It merely profiles Indian expats without regard to notability. The piece in The Chieftain mentions Lad completely off-handedly, and the movie hasn't been made yet and certainly doesn't rise to WP:NFILM levels. jps (talk) 11:38, 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) 09:30, 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. Please, folks, everybody is welcome to participate in these discussions, but let's keep the conversation to merits of the articles. Personal attacks are never useful or welcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Tollett[edit]

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

This article is a completely unsourced mess of how this women had fleeting brushes with greatness. It has sat tagged as being based on primary sources for 4 years, but it is based on NO sources. Per NOPAGE it should be deleted and a redirect sent to Miss Tennessee USA where her name should properly be listed. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: This nominator is apparently nominating a bunch of U.S. state pageant winner articles, and clearly has no clue about notability, unfortunately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete my edits[8], please, or I will have you deported to Pluto.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete your edit, I struck an irrelevant off topic personal attack. You've now had two chances to comment on the topic, not me, and have failed to do so, so your vote has no relevance. Merry Christmas Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is "personal" that I have observed you have a deficient understanding of notability standards, but I did not mean that to be an attack. I think editors do you a disservice when they don't point out what you are doing wrong, otherwise how can you find out that your nominations are unhelpful? I'd rather you only nominate truly non-notable pageant people, we do have lots of spam around here, and people who like rooting out spam are more effective if they don't nominate articles of actually notable people. My vote is 100 times more relevant than yours because I actually reviewed the article, adding readily available sources.[9] Your vote and nomination is so irrelevant its like a 700-page future history novel where Jersey Shore has 7 seasons instead of 6. You get to page 700 and question whether Michael Sorrentino would still appear in Marriage Boot Camp in this alternate history and they leave you high and dry and feeling like you've wasted a lot of time, just like anyone who actually reads this entire comment by me. And for that, I am indeed sorry.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I don't know anything about the show you are talking about, but I can't see how minor pageant wins, having a twin sister who is connected to someone famous, or dating a NASCAR driver but breaking up with him and marrying someone else does much to justify an article here. Once you remove all the TMZ stuff you get down to her winning a state pageant. There is no policy except WP:NMODEL that covers that, which she fails spectacularly. I'm baffled how a person can be top of the world news, charged with terrorism offences in the US Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enrique_Marquez_(accomplice) and people say 'no article' but then users defend pageant winner articles where they barely get 'local person wins award' WP:ROUTINE coverage for making zero impact on anything or anyone other then providing some entertainment for a few hours as part of a staged production. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "let's delete something in the news" AfD is a separate phenomenon, it draws a different breed of nominator. Being a U.S. state pageant winner in the Miss America or Miss USA pageants almost always generates enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, at least from any reasonably sized U.S. state, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Barnas (2008); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julianna White (2010); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley (2012). Tollett gets mentioned in her local regional paper a ridiculous number of times even in recent years, every time she advises some other pageant person, I didn't think it worthwhile to cite those instances.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tennessee USA#Winners, as it seems to me that this is a case where WP:BLP1E is failed. However, redirect are reasonable, plasuible search terms, and cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one-time Olympic medal winner should be a re-direct under this theory of BLP1E.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big sports guy, but Olympic Medal winners have to go through multiple competitions of skill (World Cups etc) and generally have a sports career that involve developing skills. These pageant holders show no such track record - they can basically show up and win their first event with some couching, as evidenced by some of the interviews. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a value judgment as to whether someone has done something to deserve notability. Most pageant winners in the United States (like Tollett) have done many pageants before winning a major U.S. State pageant. But the issue is whether the subject meets WP:GNG as a result of their accomplishments; that why winners of crappy pageants like "miss middle-earth continental tourism" or whatever get deleted. The sports "rules" for notability on here are ridiculous, someone plays one top level game in American professional baseball and he gets a page. And football is even worse, with article on referees (e.g., Cristina Dorcioman) and other incredibly minor people. In comparison, Tollett has been the subject of adulation and acclaim in Tennessee for years. It may also be for something dumb, but people care about it, so its notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note criterion #3 of WP:BLP1E. For Olympic one-time medalists the event "[is] significant and [their] role [is] both substantial and well documented", therefore your comparative argument is unfortunatly a bit of a straw man. The sports notability rules are not "ridiculous". If you participate at the professional level, you are notable. With pageants, national paegant winners should be considered notable for winning. Pageants at the state level, however, don't rise to the same level of notability. "People care about it so it's notable" is also a fallacy - I could link about a half-dozen arguments to avoid that are close variations on that; WP:LOCALFAME may be the most on-point. If pageants at the sub-national level are to be considered notable, there needs to be a demonstrated WP:CONSENSUS (even if the description of it is "only an essay") of the same sort as WP:SOLDIER for instance. In the absence of such an expression of consensus (and I am willing to stand corrected if I have missed one) I have to fall back on BLP1E for cases like this, which, no matter how delightful the ladies in question are and how popular they are in their home states, I can't see as passing criterion #3. (Also, if she (and the other pageant winners in question here) have indeed been the "subject[s] of adulation and acclaim...for years", where are the reliable sources outside of the burst of coverage for the one pageant win?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One-time Olympic medalists are often complete nobodies playing sports people only care about once every four years. Yes, this is a value judgment. They get one burst (or even less than that) of coverage and that's it. When I say "people care", I mean they care reflected in the coverage which meets WP:GNG. Whether they should care or actually do care is irrelevant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a value judgement, but it's a value judgement that's reflected in long-time, rock-solid WP:CONSENSUS. Again, I'd be more than happy to change to "keep" if there is coverage available that shows they meet GNG outside of the one title, per BLP1E #3 - is this coverage available? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have rethought my previous positions. While in theory the title of Miss Tennessee USA is more than just winning a competition, in the realm of actual coverage it is just that. Titles like Miss America get more than just winning coverage, but not titles below that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think AfD would be improved if people used less confrontational tones and refrained from attacks on other people. Saying someone has a deficient understanding is an attack. I see both sides of this debate, but think that we need to delete basically all the state winner articles, and then maybe allow a few to be recreated that are on truly notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment on content, not contributor, please. clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pageant winners without any other claims to notability don't really need their own separate pages. Lithorien (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has no basis in policy. Another case where I wish we had more women on wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? A veiled misogyny accusation? Is that really appropriate? Lithorien (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an anti-woman issue. In fact, many argue that the whole industry is offensive to women.[10] I'm happy to see non-notable male models/pageant winners deleted/redirected too. Nearly all my similar nominations have now closed as delete or redirect but this one keeps getting relisted. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your nominations you completely blew, however. Some of the rest of the articles will get recreated, I am sure (though not by me). --Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can never predict AfD outcomes. I watch all deleted or redirected titles, so that should not be a problem. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. Not known for anything other than "also ran" in a beauty pageant. State title holders don't meet WP:PAGEDECIDE on that alone. Blue Riband► 14:35, 1 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fappening (film)[edit]

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

Comparing this article with WP:NF, I cannot see how this is notable. Most of the references listed do not look reliable (blogs, websites with no editorial control, etc.) There is a connection with the 2014 celebrity photo hack, but notability is not inherited. sst✈^(discuss) 09:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Sean Weathers. I remember this director - I had to nominate some of his films for deletion back in 2013 after a bunch of them were created en masse by the same editor - the person who also created this article. The problem with this guy's films is that very few of them gain any sort of substantial coverage in reliable sources that would show independent notability. Weathers's article was also borderline spam and I see that the same editor has started creating a mass of Weather related articles as well. I hate to say it, but I do think that there's a COI involved here given that this editor seems to be a SPA and one that appears to only be here to promote Weathers and his work. Going back to this film, I can't find anything to really show notability - the strongest source was this one, which is just a reprint of a press release. The others are all SPS and unusable. I say that this needs to be deleted with no history, since a look at the editor's past actions has shown that he's reverted some of my attempts to redirect past article creations, so it's likely that he'll just revert any attempts to redirect with history. Like I said, this guy seems to only be here to promote Weathers's work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the spammy nature of the articles and the fact that they've been doing this for years and haven't responded to prior deletions or attempts to communicate, I'm just going to block them as a spam/advertising only account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten rid of the other articles as sheer, unadulterated spam. Other than some of his early work, almost none of his films pass NFILM and all of the ones created by this editor were unambiguously promotional. This current article is no different and I'd actually endorse a speedy deletion as WP:G11 here. However way this is deleted, I would recommend not leaving the article history intact since there is a strong chance that there will be an attempt to recreate this, given that we've had the same person spamming for this director since 2009. It's likely that they'll be back. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79. This looks a clear case of the advertising behaviour for non-notable films for which the article creator has got himself blocked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Tokyogirl79. Search My Trash is a good source source for interviews, but I'm unconvinced that it can show notability. The other sources are even worse, such as Blogspot and Tumblr. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by TomStar81 CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ewens[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography, no context in its current form, no references to assert notability CatcherStorm ^talk 08:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have just speedied this, there's literally nothing. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' There is nothing that even asserts anything that appraoches notability, no sources and I mean no sources of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Las Vegas car attack[edit]

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

Hardly notable event certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article. Clearly murder according to the police but stems from a domestic tiff, nothing unusual in that and wikipedia is not a news service. Contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while this event got widespread news coverage a random person going nuts and driving on a sidewalk is not going to have any lasting effect on government policy or anything but the victim's and their families. Unlike a terrorist attack that can shape government policy and spending. Story will get a bit of press when she goes to trial, and that will be it. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comment above, Wikipedia isn't a news service. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. Homicide of one person by suspect without an ideological motive - this happens every day in the US alone '''tAD''' (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable event that got no international coverage, does not satisfy WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SNOW in the forecast; Wikipedia is not a news service and this will have no lasting impact to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely nothing unusual and notable. Parsley Man (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ALL of the above - not worthy of an entry. 98.67.179.160 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete per above. ansh 666 19:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will actually have to say Keep here. The case has received world wide headlines. Plenty of reliable sources. Still continues to be covered by world media days later and likely over the trial as well. This is a clear Keep article for me. Some of the Deletion !votes seem to indicate knowledge of this case being of no lasting impact.. I want to borrow your magic balls please... so I also can look into the future. For now the case has received far over the threshold of attention and should be kept. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Article is well sourced, and happened during a major pageant. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Paris Las Vegas or another suitable location. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing notable about this crime at this point. If it somehow develops a notable aspect later on through an unusual legal proceeding or connection to something other than a routine domestic then the article could be re-created later, but there is no reason to have it now. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm inclined to agree with TheBlinkster that it has the potential to become notable but presently isn't. I wouldn't salt it, but I'd delete for now. Aspirex (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Rajaei Rizi[edit]

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

Unremarkable university professor, sources do not assert notability of the subject CatcherStorm ^talk 08:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a Professor at a top University, nor has he been published in a notable journal. Seasider91 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable due to a lack of reliable sources. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovifm.com ( Radio ). Continued block evasion by serial sockpuppeteer User:Alex9777777. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovifm music[edit]

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

Had nominated for speedy under A7, anonymous IP user removed, am now moving to AfD, see talk page for the list of previous titles under which this company has attempted to insert itself into Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC) KDS4444^Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Lovifm Music-Article should not be deleted !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.16.55 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike its predecessors, Lovifm.com music, Lovifm.com ( Radio ), Lovifm (Blogs), Aleksej Pechkurov ( Radio Lovifm ), Lovifm radio, and Lovifm Music (capital M on "music"). Because why? KDS4444^Talk 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.1.207 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article for Wikipedia ! Lovifm music -do not delete. Article for Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.138.189 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good article Lovifm music -do not delete. Article for Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike previous articles Lovifm, this article is more complete , and it should remain in Wikipedia !!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The true art of the real site and a man ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.9.97 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as KDS4444 notes above, this article has previously been created under a range of titles, by a range of user accounts --- previous creations have all been by identified sockpuppets of Alex9777777 -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777/Archive. Based on this evidence, I have listed the creator of this article at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 for investigation since I suspect this may be the same individual re-publishing this material. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added information in article, good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferMari-Gardner (talk • contribs)

Delete. Unremarkable app whose articles seems meant to promote it. No independent sources have been offered to indicate how it is notable; there also seems to be a sock working to keep this here and/or users of the app have been directed to come here. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear notable; no Google results except personal playlists and Wikipedia. Not all of the article makes much sense in any case. Speedy deletion criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) may apply. -- Bad Weather 2014 ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G5/A7 - article about web content with no claim of significance, apparently created by a block-evading self-promoter. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot Books[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG, have been unable to find any significant coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions here and there at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, hardly even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FUEL Design[edit]

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

Tagged since March 2014 as possibly non-notable. None of the citations provided discuss the actual company in question, despite the best efforts of various SPA (some of which are IPs). My searches turned up nothing about the company to improve the article, which is also written like an ad and contains a lot of original research. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of the current coverage seems to suggest even a minimally better noticeable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on the search engines to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Thompson (Singer)[edit]

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

Unremarkable "musician". The subject of the article is but 16 years old and claims to have performed with several other notable musicians such as Ariana Grande, which I seriously doubt. The website of the musician links to someone's SoundCloud account, and on top of that, the article is unreferenced. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has no source and is even 2 sentence. I think this might even qualify for a speedy delete since it's poorer than usual. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, nothing to be found. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CSD#A7 doesn't even make a claim of notability. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline 28/29[edit]

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

I can see nothing notable about this run-of-the-mill bus service. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Products and services are normally dealt with at the article of the supplier company anyway.Charles (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Charles (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 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} 08:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. We had a mass delete of bus route articles sometime ago. This one should go too. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peterkingiron. Nordic Dragon^talk 12:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Peterkingiron and Nordic Dragon - This shite belongs on some enthusiasts site, Not a worldwide Encyclopedia!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too right. I still remember when we got rid of a load of London bus articles Davey. Nordic Dragon^talk 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Dragon I know I remember when we all got rid of the bus routes too, Oh they were great times

. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7 by Titodutta (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 08:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHIRAG JANGID[edit]

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

Reason CHIRAG JANGID (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 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 merge to Strip club#United Kingdom and Europe. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual entertainment venues[edit]

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

~~WP:GNG The Avengers 10:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this more or less sounds like current articles for the gentlemens' and strip clubs, nothing to suggest a considerably better and different concept article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge article content to Strip club#United Kingdom and Europe - This seems like the best option at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title to Strip club and Merge article content to Strip club#United Kingdom and Europe. I have to agree with Guy1890, the content is slightly more restrictive, being just "clubs" on the largest British isle, but not significant different. The title is definitely overbroad for the existing article, and not just for lack of geographical restriction. Or maybe the title should be a dismbiguation page for Brothel, Sex club, Sex on premises venue, and Strip club. --Bejnar (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This article appears to be a correct statement of UK law on strip clubs. As such this is useful to have. There are too ways of dealing with this. One is a straight merge, making this the UK section of Strip club#United Kingdom and Europe, replacing s first sentence with the article content; the rest of that section would then become a "Rest of Europe" section. Alternatively this could be kept (probably renamed to indicate that it was a UK-only article) with a "main" template link from the suggested target. Eitehr of these would work. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Eye Systems[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability here. Another small company with an article full of spammy links. References do not even get close to WP:GNG Reads like an advertisement and could probably have been speedied had it not been around for so long Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this currently suggests even minimally better notability coverage for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources don't appear to get at all close to demonstrating notability, apart from two magazine articles I haven't checked they're all listings of the company in various sites which were probably written by them. Article was presumably written as a promotional exercise as the author was in personal contact with the founders. Hut 8.5 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage, much less coverage in reliable sources, just promotional (PR), advertising and sales. Fails WP:GNG, but more importantly fails [[WP:CORP. --Bejnar (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jive Communications[edit]

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

As per WP:CORP this article doesn't have any extensive coverage about it by third party reliable sources.All the references cited therein are mere passing mentions as shown in the first reference here,the second reference here is a piece of coverage by prnews which is not a reliable source and in fact it is just an announcement. The third reference is from Forbes which is a reliable source but the context in which Jive is mentioned is just as a passing mention in article about something else altogether. And another reference from a PR oriented website. Other cited reference 1,2, and 3 are from a review websites about VoIP service providers which doesn't meet the threshold to be a reliable source as per WP:RS since anyone can write a review including persons having a conflict of interest in the subject.On these counts I think the article should be deleted as it contravenes WP:Notability organizations_and_companies Kansiime (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kansiime (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kansiime (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's some coverage but perhaps nothing to suggest a solid enough notable article for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG as per the sources available as of now. Some of the sources are actually about non- notable individuals who have been hired by the organization in question and press releases that are generally non-reliable sources according to WP:RS. Mwenzangu (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All those references, and not a single substantial treatment by a reliable source among them. The article is also painfully promotional. Thparkth (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SwisterTwister: for comments after it was relisted. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:40, 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Gable[edit]

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

I considered PRODing this but AfD may be better as I'm simply questioning the solidity of the listed Independent Award because my searches found nothing better than passing mentions at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam. It's also amusing this has stayed like this since starting in March 2008 so the time for attention is now. Notifying Tokyogirl79, DGG and LaMona who list to be notified of authors AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost unknown author, her most widely held novel is in only 12 libraries according to WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- She seems to be high in her field in a small niche market, perhaps a kind of book that do not get inot mainstream libraries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 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 07:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a little sourcing. More coverage in this search: [11]. She is taken seriously (sales, reputation) as a Catholic novelist with a following.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is reviewed in Catholic Digest, as seen here: [12], [13], [14]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRDP[edit]

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

This has been around since 2010 but it still has not a single robust, independent reference. All refs are blogs, download sites or technical info. There are many remote desktop applications around and this one seems no more notable than many others. It certainly fails WP:GNG as it stands. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's content seems to initially have been derived from Rdesktop and is sharing a lot of information with the original. If this AfD proposal is going anywhere, there should be another one for Rdesktop, as it is in no better shape. Relevant information (mostly the information about the implemented feature set and protocol versions as it might be difficult to get at in a single source) might be migrated to the Remote Desktop Protocol#Non-Microsoft_implementations section after some refactoring there or possibly warrant a new Comparison Of Remote Desktop Clients for RDP article. Wabbiteer (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps at best as the currently listed sources seem acceptable at first but I'm not sure if this convinces the software notability guidelines and my searches also found nothing better than a few passing mentions. Draft and userfy if needed of course though, SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 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} 07:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up press releases, trivial mentions, and wiki mirrors. No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galilea La Salvia[edit]

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

Child actress with only one "significant" role (barely – it's a secondary supporting role on the Nickelodeon series Talia in the Kitchen), and thus fails WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete child actress in at best background roles. She may go on to be a major star, but has not yet, she is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 22 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} 07:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as I would've also explored moving to the TV show's article but that was only for 30 episodes so far so it's not solid. Delete for now at best and wait for a better article if ever available. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Owl Publishing Ltd[edit]

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

This is an article about a new publishing house about which I can find no indications of notability in reliable independent sources; this article is regrettably WP:TOOSOON. The thing that is actually notable is the book The Little Black Fish which the publisher has reprinted; the "accomplishments" claimed in the article were in fact awards given to the book well before the company even existed. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete - Nothing to suggest even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs don't establish notability, they're trivial or primary apart from a couple of small book reviews which are routine fair. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this publisher appears to be concentrating on English versions of childrens books from Iranian authors/illustrators which is admirable, plus its name and logo is cute:) but unfortunately a search doesn't bring up enough notable sources, the article at present relies on mainly primary sources, plus one successful book (that already has an article), so delete as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Coolabahapple (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dank (basketball team)[edit]

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

The only article out of all the teams in the Kyrgyzstan league. Barely has information and is outdated. All the info can be added to the league's page, anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 16 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} 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westbury and United Banks Hockey Club[edit]

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

I'm having difficulty seeing how this orphaned article about a field hockey club meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and I can't find enough reliable third party sources to show it meets GNG — Rod ^talk 19:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I suspect that this was an amateur club at the time when it was in the Premier League. That puts it in the top league of its sport. I suspect that we would have allowed club articles in the period when Rugby Union was an amateur sport; so why not hockey? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by Premier League. Although I'm having problems finding sources to give clarity it appears to have been in West Hockey Association (field hockey) from which winners can progress into the England Hockey League. It seems they are currently in the 2nd tier (Championship) of the local division.— Rod ^talk 16:47, 20 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} 07:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can tell online, club appears to be of amateur status and is not a member of the England Hockey League. The Notability for sports guidelines do not cover teams, and in reviewing the Non-commercial organizations guidelines, it appears as though this club is only of local significance for Bristol. As a comment, I find it telling that neither this club nor the sport of field hockey is listed on a page detailing Sport in Bristol or on the Template:Sport in Bristol. Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I voted last week but my comment isn't here, probably sent from my phone with poor internet connection. NN. Szzuk (talk) 23:19, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Duffy (psychiatrist)[edit]

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

This article does not pass GNG or BLP, as it does not cite any reliable and independent sources that cover the doc in depth. I did a Google search for more source and found him listed only on a medical clinic website. There does not appear to be any sources to establish notability. Delta13C (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is extremely poorly written and looks like a cross between a resume and a promotion piece. I also find the "voted best doctor since 2001" statement suspect since we would include specific years the individual won even if it were 2001-present. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 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} 07:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EricEnfermero has edited out some of the promotional language which is a helpful step to allow us to concentrate on considering notability. It is clear that the subject of this article has some publications to his name, but I can't see anything to suggest that this medical professional is notable when judged against WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought about this for a while. I thought that the presidency of the Institute of Religion and Health (now the Institute of Spirituality and Health) could be a path to notability, but I can't find anything that suggests that the ISH is itself a notable organization. I don't see anything else that helps him meet WP:GNG or one of the SNGs like WP:PROF or the (often easier) WP:AUTHOR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:39, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Towers[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a proposed building from 2006 which was never built. Care was taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to search for evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties and was not successful. The existing references are primary sources, a press release, a dead link, and a link to ImageShack. There is no evidence that I can locate to suggest that this building will ever be completed. I am recommending deletion on the basis that the subject lacks requisite coverage to satisfy general notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to her main article and buildings category, that'll get some eyeballs on this Afd, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, by combining the architect's last name with "Signature Towers," one does see some WP:RS. For example this 2010 bylined news article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep when an architect is as acclaimed as Zaha Hadid, even her unbuilt designs can be notable (look how many unbuilt List of Frank Lloyd Wright works designs have articles). This one has sufficient sources to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment. It is apparent that Zaha Hadid is notable, but notability is not inherited to works-in-progress. What examples can you show where the Signature Towers are recipients of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is this Daniel Libeskind Studios video [15]. More seriously, this [16] news search. I'm not going to object to a redirect, to [[Zaha Hadid, adding the link User:Shawn in Montreal found. Those towers really do dance, Someone in Dubai may even decide to built it. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 15 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} 07:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Teofilovic[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a tech entrepreneur, which makes no particularly compelling claim of notability — it's really a prosified version of a résumé, if it's anything at all. Being CEO of a tech startup can get a person into Wikipedia, if the article is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but it doesn't confer an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist. For sourcing, we have two blog pieces, and while I'm not fluent in Swedish, there are several telltale clues — same author, same date, same overall article structures, the obvious and recognizable correspondence of words like "telekombranschen" → "telecom business" and "Facebook" → "Facebook" — that the two pieces are actually the same article in English and Swedish versions. So really we've got one source — and one source, especially when it's a blog, isn't enough to pass GNG. And for added bonus, compare the creator's username ("Timtip") to the name of the topic's company ("Twintip") — insert conflict of interest here. All of which spells delete. Or radera, for the Swedish speakers among us. Bearcat (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as searches clearly found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 15 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} 07:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable investor; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 07:22, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Pender[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Alex (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article has actually stayed since 2007 but what's more is also the fact there's nothing to even suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 16 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} 07:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR as the subject has only had a significant role in one notable film (The Cookout). There are actually a few news sources covering an incident that the subject is involved in, but including that here (and, in particular, making it a major component of the article) would be problematic from a WP:BLP perspective. Hut 8.5 16:37, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Squires[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY's criteria. Played exclusively in the semi-pro British leagues. Ravenswing 07:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 16 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} 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 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 Dispensary. Seeing as Weed's mentioned over there it makes sense just to redirect this... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weedery[edit]

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

Should belong to Wikitionary instead of Wikipedia? Ueutyi (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely enough for a better independently separate encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are hits on Google News. The New York Times ran this story about it, which was then picked up by The Independent in England. If it's hitting the British press, it's probably notable. But I guess an argument could be made to merge this into meadery as a variant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator does not give a reason for deletion, AFD is not for suggesting moves Seasider91 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a nominator saying its a WP:DICDEF and suggesting deletion by sending it here. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dispensary. It's a slang term for marijuana dispensary, not a separate concept. NY Times and other reliable sources have used it, making it a sensible redirect. Seems straightforward to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shamik Dasgupta[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as searches found several links at all News, browsers and WP:INDAFD but none of the suggesting a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 15 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} 07:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was able to find a fair number of mentions for Dasgupta and his works (examples: [17] [18] [19] [20]) - I believe by adding these sources and by completing the merge proposed in 2013 the article can be strengthened sufficiently to meet notability. Artw (talk) 07:27, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Caravan (graphic novel)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodycoolbaby (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Bloodycoolbaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamik Dasgupta as there's nothing to suggest a solidly better notable article for either the author and the literature itself. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 15 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} 07:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shamik Dasgupta, which I believe notability can be established for. Artw (talk) 07:21, 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. Sandstein 19:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrowserStack[edit]

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

Deleted once as blatant advertising, this new article was created by - guess what? - a "digital marketing" professional, aka wiki-spammer. It has superficial referenciness but the sources all trace back to press releases with the exception of a minor hacking incident of no real importance. In sum: this is a minor product which got a minor and very non-notable industry award; the main driver for having the article is, beyond any reasonable doubt, the company's PR department. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not sure it is being created by the PR team, as logically they would leave out mention of a security breach. Also, they seem to be competition for Sauce Labs. Might be worth marking it incomplete, rather than writing off completely as advertising. Bookish.krish (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I also share the fact this seems marginally notable and acceptable but my searches also found only some links at Books and News so far, and there's nothing to suggest any better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 08:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. In its current condition, highly promotional and would deserve to be deleted per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blue Riband► 18:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data theory[edit]

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

Article (Like System philosophy) has been created to support the personal philosophy of the editor or one of his friends to promote their web site. Editor has also been trying to insert that position on three philosophy articles (Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy and Modern Philosophy and is edit warring to achieve that. Only reference here is a link to a set of lecture notes. This is the web site being promoted by all of these edits. --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded you are wrong. There is no external link that leads to the promotion of 3rd party websites. The deletion was inappropriately challenged by an editor who have not done enough research behind his fallacious assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this looks like someone's joke. Curro2 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable, secondary sources that discuss "data theory," as it is described in this article. If the author can provide sources to substantiate the notability of this theory, then I would be happy to change my vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. As much as I would love to see this (Redacted) deleted it's clearly never gonna happen, Clear Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Zimbabwe[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization that does not even maintain their own website. Fails WP:ORGIN. Does not get a pass as being a franchise of a larger company. Passing and WP:ROUTINE mentions in press from the country do not provide the indepth coverage we require for other businesses. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. There’s plethora of acceptable sources from different news agencies in Zimbabwe/Africa for this article:
- All Africa News Agency- Zimbabwe: Miss Earth Zimbabwe - Defender of the Environment
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-Miss Earth Zim Shines
- The Heralrd- Stage Set for Miss Earth Zim
- The Herald Miss Earth Zim wins award
- The Herald- Miss Earth on International Mission
- The Herald Miss Earth Fire on Cancer Awareness
- The Herald Miss Earth Finalists Embark on Campaigns
- The Herald Magacha Partners on Miss Earth
- The Herald Campaign for the Needy
- The Herald Miss Earth Zim launches Online Campaign
- The Herald Markou Gears for Miss Earth
- Southern Eye-Miss Earth preps begin
- The Sunday Mail- Miss Earth Zimbabwe
- The Sunday Mail- Miss Earth Zimbabwe preps heat up
- Zimbabwe News- Miss Earth Zimbabwe
- The Standard (Zimbabwe) Miss Earth Zimbabwe re- engineers the idea of beauty pageants
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-Philippines Sojourn an Eyeopener Miss Earth Zim
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-Miss Earth Zim on International Mission
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-Bhule Scoops on Miss Earth Crown
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-MissEarth Zim: 14 beauties take the ramp
- The Chronicle Zimbabwe-Code Name Re-Du-Cle-Ing
- The Southern Eye-Bhule’s dream comes true
- The Southern Eye-Bhule’s Miss Earth journey
- The Southern Eye-Miss Earth leaves
- The Southern Eye-Miss Earth Zim: Curtain comes down
- The Southern Eye-http://www.southerneye.co.zw/2014/09/01/miss-earth-zim-launches-online-contest Miss Earth Zim Launches Online Contest
- The Southern Eye-Miss Earth Zim finalists go green
- The Southern Eye-Earth preps begin--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richie Campbell. Jacona (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy delete. A11: Creator states they are a "simulation". Wikipedia is not a webhost, a place for simulations, a place to play games or to host competitions with results you made up one day. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AIC 4[edit]

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

Less infos, with no sources. 333 -blue 04:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLZ DON'T DELETE AIC 4. it just a simulation. I want to be a promoter one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMAGuy8 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not keep main space encyclopedia articles which are "simulations". We delete them. Use your WP:SANDBOX for experimenting, not the encyclopedia itself. If you want to be a promoter some day, MMAGuy8, then you need to be competent in all that you do. Please read, study and understand Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a series of these:
Asia International Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AIC 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AIC 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AIC 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AIC 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, then, passing administrator. None of them bring any value to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all This is just experimentation of no value.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as speedily as possible. This sort of experimentation has no relevance to Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, noting also the obvious copyright violation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdun Choi[edit]

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

Unremarkable university professor- this entire article appears to have been a direct copy from the professor's personal webpage. Sources clearly indicate that the subject of the article is not notable. 4 of the sources given are exactly the same, and on top of that, the sources are unreliable - they are from a university's staff directory as well as their online newspaper. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Curro2 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO of this page unless clear evidence is given that the page has been copied with permission and appropriate assignment of copyright, but without prejudice to recreation of an article on the subject that is free of copyright concerns. Using GScholar, the subject's h-index seems to be rather over 30, which is probably slightly too low to unequivocally meet WP:PROF#C1 in this particular field (though it would be enough in most others), even with two (rather heavily co-authored) papers with just over 800 and just under 600 cites. However, the subject seems also to come close enough to some of the other criteria for WP:PROF that it seems more likely than not that he would pass one or more of them. The sources used in the article are less than ideal, but we would generally accept the staff directory as a reliable source for verifying the subject's current employment once notability had been established. PWilkinson (talk) 22:48, 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 Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Alex Inowaskehae Kitonesa[edit]

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

Seems like a copyright violation, no references, no indication of significance (other than "This side is about the Famous Doctor". MB298 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G3:Hoax. Google search for the name returns only this article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 03:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above absolutely no sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships of Performing Arts[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:EVENT GoingBatty (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My views have been expressed thoroughly on the talk page. Nothing notable about this basically unknown contest which has never resulted in anything notable for anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This competition exists, but despite its claims of significance, it has never received any significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times or any of the established Hollywood entertainment industry trade publications. No notable entertainment figures are involved, and none of the award winners have had successful show business careers. It seems to be a venture to induce performers from the Philippines and other countries to travel to "Hollywood" broadly defined, to no good end. The existence of this article aids and abets what appears to be a scam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328. This isn't notable and is using WP to advertise itself. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scammy advertisement. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 22:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 22:17, 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 Mis Latvija#Miss Earth Latvia. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malvīne Stučka[edit]

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

She almost won Miss Latvia 2014. She was appointed to attend Miss Earth 2015 for Latvia, but did not go for undisclosed reasons. The barely RS here are about the Miss Earth event she did not go to. She needs a lot more then this to pass WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a runner up who didn't go to compete at a higher level. That sounds non-notable to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to appropriate article; runner up is not notable.
Redirect to Mis Latvija#Miss Earth Latvia. Apparently she actually won this particular pageant - not that the article mentions that, only the succession box at the bottom of the article. This doesn't seem to be enough for notability but it does make a redirect reasonable and plausible and, after all, redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing, but it seems she was 1st runner up but later awarded the title so she could compete at the global event, but then didn't for no stated reason. Anyway not notable. This pageant company likes to list all the women who could have competed but didn't actually show up (withdraws in industry speak) in a separate section of an infobox, which is how I found this string of names to nominate. Any that did not have a clear claim to notability beyond not being in Miss Earth pageant at all got nominated. Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 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.