Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 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) 00:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAYI UMEED[edit]

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

Non notable founded in Nov 2014 clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV and is promotional. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - re-creation of promotional article discussed at 2 previous AfDs: 1st nomination - no consensus and 2nd nomination - delete, with some involvement of COI/SPA-editors. No credible evidence of notability. Previously alleged offline-sources with in-depth coverage from independent sources would have to be provided by uninvolved editors to establish credible notability. Currently this is just self-promotion. GermanJoe (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible claim of notability and the article's references barely go beyond demonstrating that the organization exists. I also note that the linked "official website" doesn't exist and that this version of the article appears to have been created by a member of the organization. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing on any of the search engines about this organization. There is a similarly named tv show which gets some mentions, but not this org. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 5 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 merge to Leatherface. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Stubbs[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for coming up 8 years. He existed, he mixed with notable people, there are mentions of him, but I don't think it adds up to WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Hoping we can finally get this resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article only references the band's own website. However, there are a handful of sources that mention Stubbs but none that go into great detail describing his significance. If we are to keep the page, we'll have to go through and provide additional sources for support. Meatsgains (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on Leatherface. That is where all his notability lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 24 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) 23:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leatherface. I agree with Johnpacklambert. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leatherface would seem sensible. May be some duplication, have not checked. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the band is at Leatherface (band), not Leatherface, which is the horror film character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge, leaving a redirect, is probably a satisfactory outcome. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 4 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 redirect to New towns in the United Kingdom. And merge as appropriate from the history, if desired. Sandstein 12:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New town blues[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The term doesn't even seem to have any real usage. The article's sole source uses the term just once -- in the headline. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New towns in the United Kingdom (and stick a section-expand template on it), then redirect. Google search indicates that most of the first few hits do seem to use the term in this context, so I wouldn't delete the content outright; but unless someone is willing to put significant effort into expanding this article, I think it's simply neater to merge it. Aspirex (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the broader usage. What confused me was that, although the article addresses the "sociological syndrome", its sole source discusses something else -- a need for investment in infrastructure. I found two sources for the syndrome and added them to New towns in the United Kingdom. That article is pretty close to being a list article and I didn't see any convenient place to add a new section, so the new sources are attached to a (new) brief sentence at the end of the lead section. The target article might be improved if the lengthy lists were moved to a new article List of new towns in the United Kingdom, thus making it easier to expand on the issues of sociology and investment needs. But I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the subject matter. For now, I'll be striking my delete and changing to Redirect. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New towns in the United Kingdom. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New towns in the United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlet[edit]

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

Seemingly time for another AfD as the first one was 2006 (none of those users are noticeably active anymore) and as my searches found nothing better than this and this along with the currently listed coverage not being solid in-depth (first one is a partial interview and the second is an event listing), I'm not seeing how this is anymore other than a marginally locally known band. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Those albums on Victory Records ought to be enough to pass the guideline for inclusion of WP:BAND, really. I didn't find much in the way of online coverage, but there's a short biography and album review at AllMusic and this from Exclaim!. Oh, and Blabbermouth.net described them as "metalcore pioneers". I'd say that they just about scrape the bar, so I'm going for a weak-ish keep for this one. — sparklism ^hey! 07:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I think that Sparklism is correct and they may technically scrape by in WP:BAND, it is just barely. With that in mind, and knowing that passing a criteria of BAND only means they may be notable, the dearth of coverage makes me lean the other way to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per OneI5969; the sources indicate only some small passing interest, not the kind of sustained coverage that Wikipedia notability requires. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 5 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 keep. Sandstein 12:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living state leaders[edit]

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

What possible reason is there to assemble an WP:OR list of state leaders of modern time by age? Do we need to know that according to the Wikipedia editors (for there are no RS for this) that Camille Huysmans Belgium Prime Minister (1946–1947) Lived from 1871-1968 totalling 96 years, 273 days making this person the 69th longest lived state leader? How can we prove that given there have been many state leaders in history? This is most certainly very inaccurate because it is very incomplete and there are no sources that suggest this type of list outside Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this is an arbitrary intersection of topics. Longevity and political positions are unrelated topics. It's also WP:SYNTHESIS. And it's impossible to verify that these are, in fact, the longest-living state leaders without exhaustively examining all of the leaders who didn't make the list. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While poorly cited (although virtually all information is gathered from two listed sources) and while I haven't been involved with the page for several years, going back through seven years ago, the page has been premised on verifiability. While it is indeed unlikely the Monsieur Huysmans is precisely the 69th longest lived state leader, he is indeed the 69th (+/- a few, at most) longest-lived leader listed on worldstatesmen or rulers (the two preeminent sites in lists of leaders) "whose age can be proven beyond reasonable doubt" via sources on his (and other leaders') pages. More or less, this means that this is as complete a list as can be compiled, and covers ~90%+ of leaders (the remainder being unverifiable Asian/African leaders) over the past two centuries, before which it was exceedingly uncommon for individuals to surpass the minimum age of entry (95+ years). As per WP:N, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not," which refers to, e.g., "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y," neither of which are anything close to this list. WP:N states that "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability," the first of which is broadly defined as a "list [that] may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Do what you like, but WP's rules seem to leave room for this page, and the nominator's comment is essentially WP:ATA USELESS. Star Garnet (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list isn't WP:OR – all the information in it is verifiable, and assembling a list is a routine calculation, which is not counted as synthesis. Our notability guideline for lists is WP:LISTN, which states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If it can be demonstrated that other sources have assembled lists of the longest-living state leaders, then the article should be kept. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defining list with inclusion criteria of notable individuals easily meeting WP:SAL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes LISTN. Clearly not OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of world leaders by countries visited or [[List of world leaders by height] would be better topics because these criteria are more connected to their world leader status then how long they managed to live, often after they left office. Even more useful would be Longest serving world leaders because that relates directly to their time in power. As this list is defined a person could be in power for 3 day, be ousted in a coup, then live to the unremarkable age 97 and be on the list. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a whole host of arguments against this point, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins. Countries visited would immediately be deleted as simply impossible, and by height would be woefully incomplete and filled with exaggerations (from 'reliable' sources), two points on which the nominated article stands strong. Yes, it was right to delete the List of oldest NHL players, as it was based on unreliable sources and woefully incomplete information, and yes, it was right to delete the List of oldest CEOs as that's unknowable. But keeping this page is far more similar to keeping the oldest living MLB players (1st, 2nd), the largest reasons for which is verifiability and notability of listees. Star Garnet (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCzolgolz (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic list that is a perfect example of an appropriate standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of the oldest people who happened to have been state leaders. At least list of state leaders by length of reign would make some sense to connect the two. You could create lists of the oldest people by every single profession if you wanted to. Does it really matter that Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum who served in office for two months is at the top of this list just because of his longevity? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there is nothing here but WP:ATA USELESS. And there are already three lists dealing with the stated topic. Star Garnet (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
data on world leaders is extensively tracked in some good relivent ways like longest time in office, youngest in office, oldest in office and other ways directly tied to service [1] with this topic being the outlier. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a patently misleading statement, given that the page only links to nine lists, including this and a similar one. There should be many more, and the fact that they do not exist is not an argument to narrow the already minimal scope of these lists. Star Garnet (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I can understand the rationale behind nomination, a Google search does seem to indicate that this is a topic that generates enough interest to support an article on Wikipedia; for example this study was picked up by numerous news organizations. Canadian Paul 20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. This is the best keep argument I've seen based on policy. I still think notability is tenuous, and verifiability impossible in its current form, but this is interesting evidence that the cross-categorization isn't completely arbitrary. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That study is interesting- not exactly about this topic but it concluded getting elected to head of state shortens your life. This still seems like a cross catagorization and OR as editors pull together birth and death dates of some quite obscure world leaders and debate if person x lead a country or not. Very strange. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons cited above, the only reason to delete is "not useful". It is encyclopedic, and this page is littered with examples of WP:ATA USEFUL. There is no reason to delete, so despite some slightly shaky arguments I would go with keep. RailwayScientist (talk) 11:34, 6 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 keep. Sandstein 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the longest-lived United States Governors[edit]

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

This is 100% unreferenced original research. There is no intersection between long life and being a state governor at some point in time. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this is an arbitrary intersection of topics. Longevity and political positions are unrelated topics. It's also WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you for pointing at LISTN which is a great rational to delete thiz page. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of the the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders. This is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting. Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. There is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well. I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this. RoadView (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living to age 95 or 97 or whatever is not notable at all. Why not a List of US Governors with red hair or ranked by verified height? Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hair color and height might actually have some relationship to electoral success. Pburka (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but how long someone manages to live after retiring, not so much. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Czolgolz (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another encyclopedic article that is an appropriate topic for a standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest United States Senators. Star Garnet (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On a pure for/against basis, this is 4-4. However, of the delete votes, one actually cites an essay on poor "Keep" arguments, one offers no argument at all, and one is WP:PERX. On the other hand, the "Delete" site make uncontested and relevant policy-based arguments. Given the relative strength of the arguments made, deletion is the only option. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 100 oldest members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

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

Is this really a proper list? It's not a list of the oldest House members when they were serving (that's at List of the oldest living members of the United States House of Representatives). It's really just a list of the oldest people who happened to have been members of the House since their age isn't related to their service. This seems more like trivia to me, especially since it's entirely unsourced. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and how would a person verify this? Serving in the House and getting old are not related. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this is an arbitrary intersection of topics. Longevity and political positions are unrelated topics. It's also WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:LISTN. I checked Google with "Maurice Thatcher" "Cornelius Cole" oldest representatives, and it returned almost nothing. I don't think any reliable sources care about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ Totally unnecessary list that is not encyclopedic. JTtheOG (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review WP:USEFUL. Pburka (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do!--Dangermouse600 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is WP:USEFUL is an part of the essay titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." You may want to rethink citing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by this, too, but then I thought maybe he means that some of the delete arguments are invalid because they're not based on policy ("it's not useful"). However, I've yet to see any evidence posted here that it satisfies WP:LISTN. We need multiple independent, reliable sources that analyze the group as a whole. Unless one of the keep voters can find sources that do so, their votes are likely to be disregarded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of the the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders. This is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting. Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. There is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well. I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this. RoadView (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what respect is surviving to 95 years notable? Pburka (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Czolgolz (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RoadView. Star Garnet (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as G10 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gollynomics[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG A Google search only finds this article and a mention on Facebook Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft If not yet ready to go live then draft it. Original editor is planning on working to improve article with links to charity projects and other additions that should help with the claims of notability. Amortias (T)(C) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: There appears to be enough evidence of its existence to remove the issue of it being a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Even if it isn't a hoax, there are zero independent sources so it's a clear notability fail. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferably speedily), as it clearly fails the notability criteria. I'm half wondering if it's a hoax, given the connotations of the name. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled that my speedy tag was removed, subjects as contentious as this need reliable sources to ascertain notability this had none and should have been deleted.Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches simply found nothing better at all. Notifying tagger Nepaxt. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Not notable enough now, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Userfying gives the new user chance to get feedback and work on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON The official website isn't even up yet! Adam9007 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I sent it to speedy delete on G10 - attack page. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio F-105W[edit]

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

This page should at most be merged with Casio F-91W as the F-105W is just a newer variant of that model. The content of this article is no more than specifications and a user manual, with no indication of notability. There is no need to keep this article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the historical fact that this model existed? I am particularly fond of the F-105W and think that it should stay or be mentioned on the F-91W page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willoc (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of variants of the F-91W on its page, but the F-105W is not mentioned there. I think it probably belongs here instead of its own page. This also falls under WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding what Willoc mentioned the historical fact that the watch exists (a claim no one is disputing) is not enough for an article, it needs to pass WP:N which calls for multiple instances of non trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:ITEXISTS may also be a good thing to look up.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no sources, effectively, just an advert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to base an article upon. HighInBC 23:55, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Gorny[edit]

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

This is a vanity article about a subject whose notability is only local. Wikipedia is not a "Who's Who of local businessmen".

This is a 2nd nomination. The first nomination failed to receive any attention even though it was relisted. It was closed as "no consensus", but it should have been closed with "none opposed" and deleted.

Incidentally, the article's creator and primary editor has a conflict of interest and should not have created nor should he/she continue to edit this article. Rklawton (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better at all and the listed coverage is simply not enough. Notifying PRODer Piotrus. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for businessmen. Local notability at best. Safiel (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First AfD was closed as no consensus because nobody bothered to comment one way or the other (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny). Sigh. Thank you, User:Rklawton, for dusting this one off - I think now we have a consensus that this biography of is not worthy of an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:48, 4 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 Speedied as G12 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galad the looter[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Body of article appears to be an attempt at storytelling but not in the least an attempt at writing an article. Dschslava (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [2] - tagged accordingly. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dschslava's argument that the article fails WP:GNG; further, the article has the appearance of a direct copy of [3]. The single link included in the "References" section leads to www.looterslair.com, which contains essentially the same information as this article. Propose speedy deletion. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Jacobs[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who fails the GNG because of a lack of significant coverage. Winning a state boxing title doesn't show notability nor is there significant coverage of him as a trainer. I didn't find him ever listed by Ring Magazine as a top 10 contender, so he fails WP:NBOX. No supporting evidence found in a reliable source he was a world top 10 boxer for any major organization. Jakejr (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as my searches found nothing better than a few links here and there, nothing outstanding though. Notifying speedy tagger NottNott. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBOX, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:01, 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) 00:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Amin Bodla[edit]

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

Don't think he has the significant coverage to meet the GNG. Doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists and martial arts halls of fame don't show notability. I found a previous discussion where martial arts "world records" were determined to be not enough to show notability (WT:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 16#Do world records confer notability?), probably because there are no standards as to what constitutes a punch or kick. I don't have strong feelings about this, but thought it was worth a discussion. Jakejr (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to nominate this myself - just waiting to see if more could be added that would suggest notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE. The sort of record collections described do not confer notability and neither does hall of fame membership.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. These records and hall of fame memberships don't show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Earth[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, no sources conform WP:RS given in this article as what looks to be a source is a (related) external link. Beside that, according to this site the last Mrs. Earth is a different one than given in the article. The Banner talk 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an event that fails WP:EVENT 20 people... not encyclopedic. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails 1E & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:22, 5 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracles Sing Modern[edit]

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

This entire article is based on the premise that The Miracles recorded an album which was never released, but there is no convincing evidence that this ever happened. The explanation offered is that the sleeve of their album I'll Try Something New announces it as a forthcoming release - but what it actually says (quoted exactly, so apologies for the shouting) is:

THE MIRACLES CAN ALSO BE HEARD ON "HI WE'RE THE MIRACLES" TM 220, "COOKIN' WITH THE MIRACLES" TM 223 AND TAMLA SPECIAL TM 224.

MORE OF THE STANDARDS SAMPLED HERE CAN SOON BE HEARD ON AN ALBUM SOON TO BE RELEASED. WATCH FOR IT! THE MIRACLES SING MODERN.

Note that that the actual preceding Miracles albums (HI WE'RE THE MIRACLES and COOKIN' WITH THE MIRACLES) are quoted and THE MIRACLES SING MODERN is not - it appears to be nothing more than a description rather than a title and for all we know the album "soon to be released" was indeed released. There is otherwise a gap in the Tamla Motown catalogue at TM-234 which was allegedly for this album but that is really clutching at straws - no reliable evidence is presented that this was the album assigned that number, and anyway the gap is not especially significant - I could not find a TM-235 either.

The article also, in great detail, describes the content of this album and its artwork but the evidence for this is an unattributed mock up of what this album may have looked like, and that even says "I've never seen an official track listing; so this is a suggested track listing only".

At best, this is appears to be folklore being passed off as fact. At worst, it is a hoax. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does not matter whether or not it has been written in good faith; It just does not exist. Some folklore existing on non-existent things may qualify as being notable, but I do not see any reasonable way this could be justified to be worth of inclusion. Ceosad (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems easy and here's nothing else to suggest a better article as mentioned above. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . If you look at the Miracles Album Discography,in the 1994 Smokey Robinson & The Miracles 35th AnniversaryBox Set collection booklet, Page 63,you will see a COMPLETE LIST of ALL of The Miracles' albums listed. It clearly shows that they did indeed record an album, catalogued as Tamla T-234,(or TM-234), and that this album was entitled "The Miracles Sing Modern" . This is NO HOAX, as Mr Smith would have you believe. If you don't believe it , get a copy of this collection and see for yourselves. These are Motown Records' words in their own liner notes ... not mine.

This album was intended for release right after their album I'll Try Something New in 1962. (Tamla T-230). This is also verified by the "Tamla Album Discography" in a ref that I had already included with the article. I don't know where Mr. Smith looked...but he obviously didn't look in the Tamla Album Discography (1961-1981)...if he had, he would have seen it. ^[1] and it was ALREADY POSTED in Wikipedia by myself some 5 years ago in the article Motown discography based upon my research . Look in the "contents" box under "ALBUMS 1962" and you'll see it yourselves.

If Motown's own liner notes on not just ONE but TWO Miracles albums verifed it, and the Tamla Album Discography (1961-1981) verifies it, and Wikipedia's OWN "Motown Discography" clearly lists it (which would have been deleted a LONG time ago had it been incorrect) ,that serves as undisputable proof that this album existed...and my article even shows a ref link to the album's ALREADY COMPLETED FRONT and REAR COVERS. Here it is: ^[2]

I'm sure that , if you check my sources, as Mr. Smith should have done, you will see my words are truthful...and that this album was not a fantasy or hoax .This is an important part of the early history of Motown's first, and most important group. A group, I might add, that is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Thanks. Willgee (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.bsnpubs.com/motown/tamla/tamla.html
^ https://www.flickr.com/photos/a_tom/8307389738

You're argument will be better received if you comment only only the article content and not other editors. I did, of course, look very carefully at your references and they are not reliable. Anyone can put anything on the internet - it doesn't have to be true. In particular, the "ALREADY COMPLETED FRONT and REAR COVERS" image is a fan mock-up which says as much. The bsnpubs site may look authoritative but it isn't. Wikipedia may look authoritative but it isn't. However, you are suggesting that there are some reliable sources. The sleeve of I'll Try Something New is, I believe, a non-stater as explained above, but the 35th Anniversary box set booklet may well be interesting. Can you provide a scan of it? RichardOSmith (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have simply asked me before printing notices on my article stating that it was a hoax . According to Wikipedia's own stated definition, a "hoax" is, and I quote:" an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real."

I don't print hoaxes , and I don't make attempts to "trick" audiences .

There are also at least two other Miracles CD liner notes that mention The Miracles' "Sing Modern LP: The "Lost and Found:Along Came Love" CD, and their "Depend On Me" CD. The articles in both were written by Miracles biographer Stu Hackel.

How and where did you want that scan sent ? Willgee (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the liner notes as further reference!!!!!! I do not see them included as reference in the article.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's not your article. The tag says that "some or all of its content may constitute a hoax" and given that the evidence to the contrary so far presented includes a faked-up album cover this still seems a very reasonable concern. The bulk of the article describes the content of the supposed album yet the same ref indicates that this isn't known - is that not presenting something false as real? My concern is not that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive but that things are being inferred (such as the preceding album's liner notes announcing an actual album title) and presented as fact when they ought not to be. It would be useful if you uploaded the liner notes here on Wikipedia so we can all view them and ascertain their reliability (the "undisputable proof" offered so far has been nothing of the sort) but also the lack of reliable independent coverage of the album would still suggest zero notability and something to counter that would be useful too. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're splitting hairs. First you say that the article is a hoax and the album never existed...folklore. I prove to you that it did ...and then you start talking about the fact that the article isn't mine ..which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm well aware that , once submitted on Wikipedia,that it is no longer mine... even though I was it's author.

But that isn't the real issue, is it ?

Then, you state that there isn't any independent coverage of the album.

Are you sure about that ? Because, if not, you shouldn't make such statements. You're liable to be proven wrong...and you're about to be. Here is an excerpt from an article by Eric Luecking, dated July 24th 2009,for the " Soul Sides" website..a review of The Miracles' "Depend On Me: The Early Albums" 2 CD Set. The following is a direct quote from that article:

"The set comprises their albums through May of 1963. In addition to the classics heard to this day on oldies radio, you also get a reminder of the direction that the Miracles were heading (before reversing course) in 1961/1962 covering some pop standards and American songbook titles such as “On The Street Where You Live” and “I’ve Got You Under My Skin.” They even had a pending album release called Miracles Sing Modern that was ultimately shelved for unknown reasons. Perhaps they realized that they had too many great songwriters in their stable to sing other people’s songs. They had their own classics to create." ^[1] Willgee (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://soul-sides.com/2009/07/miracles-motown-and-memories.html

Twice you said "my article". Unreliable sources (such as this latest) do not prove anything, I'm afraid. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with just in case alternative) I would think CD liner note references from the record company (Motown), and by an official biographer, would be proof of the album almost being release and not a hoax by the articles arthur or anyone else (although an actual track line up would be helpful). And I wouldn’t think the record company would make such a hoax either. As an alt:ernative, I would offer referencing the album in the main article about the group.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources show that this album existed. The nom's rationale regarding the alleged title of this album is spot on. The other titles are in quotations and are referenced by a Tamla #; what the creator of this article has chosen to believe is a title is simply a description of their next upcoming album, not a title, since it is neither in quotations or given a Tamla #. Comments like "it was given the official catalog number of Tamla T234" are clearly WP:OR, and not backed up by WP:RS (the source which lists the record clearly asks folks to help make corrections to the list). Discogs makes no mention of the record, and that's a far more reliable site than the one used in the article. The album is a fan mock-up, completely non-RS (is great to include if the album could be proven to have been a thought). The best reference to show that the album was actually in a conceptual stage is the reference attributed to Eric Luecking. However the source link doesn't not make that attribution, instead listing the author as one "O-Dub", and the link is to a wordpress site, so there is no editorial oversite and therefore it is not a RS. Finally, at best there might be evidence that there was an album planned, and perhaps one of the names was the name of this article, but the rest of the article (what tracks might appear, who might participate) is pure WP:OR and fan supposition. But I think everyone is missing the point, and part of that is the original concept of whether or not this is a hoax. That is irrelevant to this discussion. The album simply doesn't meet the notability requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Plain and simple. The simple fact that we are having so much difficulty even showing the album existed is proof of its lack of notability. At best, if the title can be proven, it could be mentioned on the group's page, but definitely not enough to give it its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Willgee: Thanks for reminding me about this discussion Willgee, but am still not convinced that this article is worth keeping, as other editors have pointed out above that there are no reliable sources available. Ceosad (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will temporarily strike my vote, as I will be away for some days, and this case has been proven to be somewhat more complicated than what I originally expected. Ceosad (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will send The Miracles' Album Discography in a few days. Willgee (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Campbell (politician)[edit]

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

Subject is sheriff of a modest community of 165,000. PROD removed by SPA. Article created by a number of SPAs - some of the usernames would indicate COI. He has numerous Google results, but they are mainly local news of his election as sheriff, as well as passing comments he has made, in his role as sheriff, about local crimes (example - somewhat like a spokesperson). But appears to lack in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I would be interested in input from U.S. Wikipedians more familiar with the occupation of sheriff. Maybe I am missing something. Citobun (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply not even enough for minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
County sheriff is not an office that confers an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL; while a sheriff can get into Wikipedia if the available volume of reliable source coverage vaults him over WP:GNG, it is not a position where any sheriff gets an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. But the level of coverage here is not sufficient, and even the article itself has very little substance to it beyond a cursory statement that he exists (almost half of it is actually a WP:COATRACK about the sheriff's office rather than being about him.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charly Musonda Jr.[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. Just WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No/little improvement from previously deleted article. He still fails WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 18:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete]] - WP:TOOSOON to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Recommend a salting so confirmed user can resurrect the page when the player becomes a professional '''tAD''' (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Structural Econometrics[edit]

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

A university research centre, with few references to RS on the article. A search brings up local (University of Bristol) links and papers published by staff but minimal secondary sources to show how this centre meets the GNG. I don't think Wikipedia:Notability (academics) applies so I suppose the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) — Rod ^talk 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just 1 link to a science journal in the article. University research centres are generally nn so I'm not googling for them, article author needs to provide a ref soon or expect deletion. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 4 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 speedy keep. Boldly closing this withdrawn nomination despite the outstanding delete vote; thanks to Michitaro and Jun Kayama for their efforts. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimi Ogawa[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. External link is broken. Name brings up lots of people in Google, none of whom are obviously the same person as this. No interwiki link to Japanese (which I'd expect). Dweller (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches found a few links here and there with the best outstanding being this 2003 TIME article but there's simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did find her JA Wikipedia page (ja:小川善美) and linked it to the EN page. It is a fairly detailed article and relatively well sourced for the JA Wikipedia. First she did come to fame for heading a pretty major IT corporation and was the subject of a good number of articles and awards ([4], [5], [6], [7], etc.). Even her marriage to another IT entrepreneur made the news ([8]). But recently she has made the news because she and her husband were arrested for cooking the books: [9], [10], etc. I think this easily passed WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely, thank you people. Nomination withdrawn - please can someone close this AfD asap. It's done a great job. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I edited the article to include her role in developing BowLingual, her profiling by The Nikkei as the youngest female Japanese entrepreneur in a tech firm, and the current legal proceedings for violating Japanese securities law, since while the nomination may be withdrawn the previous version of the article was definitely unacceptable. Jun Kayama 17:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Lisa Irwin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Lisa Irwin (2nd nomination)

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

fails WP:EVENT. as sad an event it was, 4 years after the disappearance there is no long term notability. The best the coverage lasted was a discounted false sighting in 2013 LibStar (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMore than one news cycle of coverage, so not just a transient interest. Many people disappear, but most of them are youths or adults who want to disappear, and vanishingly few are infants who vanish from their beds in the muddle of the night. Coverage in 2012:[11] Coverage in 2014: [12] [13] Coverage in 2015: [14] [15] Edison (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - continued coverage indeed. A simple Google news search gives plenty of coverage this year alone. WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Google brings up tons of news articles on her [16], Article meets GNG so clear Keep IMHO. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equita Accelerator[edit]

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

I added a CSD tag but this was removed. Little to no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence does not meet notability criteria. Furthermore 90% of the article is a copyright violation - the text is copied directly from the official website (click the "about" tab). Username of SPA creator indicates obvious COI. An advertisement for a for-profit business. Citobun (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I AfD'd this article simultaneously, Citobun just beat me to it. It appears to be not-notable and written with a lot of COI. Perhaps it will be notable one day, but not yet. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies), passing coverage at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, as its sole independent reference only mentions the subject in passing. ubiquity (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 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 keep. Passes WP:GNG. Neutrality and speculations are supposed to be tagged, not deleted for. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde cancer cluster[edit]

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

Includes speculation and is arguably not neutral, includes phrasing such as "In late 2011 and early 2012, over a period of several months, the Environmental Protection Agency finally tested soil in several different parts of Clyde and surrounding areas." No sources citing that incidence is beyond pure random chance. Includes both WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. CFCF 💌 📧 13:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty clear from the sources that this passes WP:GNG. Neutrality and OR are article editing issues, not reasons to delete. shoy (reactions) 14:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Shoy. Jus da fax 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well-sourced and no reason to delete that i can see. I'm really curious why this was even nominated for deletion to begin with. SageRad (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoy --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an abundance of sources cited in the article that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:53, 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. Sandstein 12:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wheatley (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: as COI-ridden article of non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as presented does not directly state a case for notability, in the Wikipedia sense of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (The cited article in The Independent has only one sentence on Wheatley.) In fairness, though, this actor has a wide variety of meaningful stage and TV credits, as well as a few film appearances, so the article deserves a little attention. Searches turn up lots of mentions. His extensive work with the Tricycle Theatre is noted in a couple of books about the theatre [17][18], and this may be the most promising case for notability, if there is one. His role in the James Bond movie The Living Daylights has also gotten some favorable mentions (e.g. [19][20]) but again, I didn't find anything lengthy. In short: a real, hard working actor, but not much in the way of detailed coverage.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive performance history is notable. Deletion is not cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisnotatest (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long history of non-notable roles and performances. Reading through this TV and film credits, the biggest role I could find was a part in Bond film The Living Daylights, where he appears in a single scene before being killed by the bad guys. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:26, 22 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} 13:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as simply none of this solidly suggests satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 05:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jinni (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS applies here - one obvious primary topic and one other. Blink this away, Jeannie, of whom I dream. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the page. There are lots of potential options a reader could be looking for. Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I'm shocked, shocked to find an, umm, partial title match, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLACK BELT BENGALI MOVIE[edit]

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

No references that assert notability CatcherStorm ^talk 11:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a long way from WP:GNG or WP:NF. sst✈ 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could not find reliable sources to substantiate notability, though there could be foreign-language sources I'm missing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:25, 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 and salt. The primary arguments on the Keep side were that sufficient sources existed to indicate notability, and that the coverage presented (and discussed at length here) was enough to qualify as significant coverage of the subject. Many editors responded that a large number of the listed sources either did not discuss the term as a concept, but rather happened to use the two words together, could not be considered secondary sources because the author defined the term, or were simply not reliable.

The more numerous arguments in favor of Delete included the article being a Coatrack, that it was an insufficiently sourced Fringe theory, and that the article in its present state included Original Research in that it attempted to tie multiple disparate sources, some having different definitions of the topic, into one cohesive treatment of the subject. Additionally a large number of editors see the subject as a Neologism.

There were arguments in favor of merging some of the content to other articles, but no consensus that this article in and of itself should be merged to a particular location.

Overall we find there is a stronger consensus to delete the page and prevent its recreation. The deletion arguments are more numerous, better based in policy, and less well refuted. The consensus to salt the page comes not only from a large number of delete voters, but also a number of keep voters, who note the amount of community time wasted with the continual recreation of this page.

On behalf of Nihonjoe and Samwalton9, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, whose suitability as an article topic is contested for various reasons, is again relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.

To help the closing admin find a hopefully lasting consensus, please do not only "vote" for deletion or keeping, but express a clear preference (together with an explanation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) about whether, how and at which depth you would like the content associated with this topic, including the supposed "incel" subculture, to be covered on Wikipedia: whether as one or more standalone articles (with which titles?), or as part of other (which?) articles. Please also take note of the previous discussions listed here. Sandstein 11:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm notifying the following users because they participated in the most recent AfD or DRV:

@Valoem, DGG, Hobit, Thparkth, Thincat, Jimbo Wales, and Raquel Baranow: Sandstein 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer, HiDrNick, RoySmith, Cunard, Thincat, Lankiveil, and Spartaz: Sandstein 11:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle, Dave Dial, Alanscottwalker, Guerillero, Rhododendrites, Juliancolton, and Onel5969: Sandstein 11:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Holdek, Tarc, CoffeeWithMarkets, Andrey Rublyov, Fyddlestix, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Mythic Writerlord: Sandstein 11:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion, BusterD, Hafspajen, Drmies, Kraxler, Libercht, and DESiegel: Sandstein 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TTTommy111, Flyer22 Reborn, HighInBC, Andrew Davidson, Gene93k, Borock, and Rsrikanth05: Sandstein 11:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Technomad, LaMona, CorporateM, and Casliber: Sandstein 11:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable as A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. The topic should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT which state our general principle that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The nomination does not provide any particular reason to delete this notable topic and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Pinging all the contributors to previous discussions pretty much guarantees a rerun of everything which has been said before. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - :::As for the book, A History of Celibacy, written by Abbott, Elizabeth, she ADMITS that her view is very differes from the mainstream deffinition, as she stated that herself: (page 16-17) :
I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .

She admits from the beginning that she uses this word in her book differently. And this is only one view; her view. If this author and some few others wishes to use those terms contrary what is the usual, generally accepted definition, well, it is her book, her choice. But what she calls in her book non religious celibacy is actually not celibacy but chastity. She has a doctorate in 19th-century history from McGill University, not sexology or religion history. All this, if it should be added it should be done differently. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that, in many ways celibacy, chastity and virginity are related as one often leads to another, but she specifically defines involuntary celibacy as a separate term dedicating an entire chapter to the concept, so I believe that supports my views. The fact she is a historian strength the notability of this topic showing it extends beyond sexology studies which has always been a sensitive area on Wikipedia. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quoting what I said at DRV, looking at the sources presented, I think it's clear that we've got sufficient reliable sources to show this is not a neologism by our standards and meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this end up being closed as delete, then I would encourage the title to be salted as well. While I stand by my evaluation that the sources presented meet our requirements (and, thus, continue to argue to keep), the overall health of the project is far more important than any single article. Right now, the continual fighting over this is impairing the health of the project. It is sucking up people's time, and it is a distraction from doing other work. We need closure. Salting the title will be a step towards that closure. A topic ban would be the next step, but I hope we don't have to go there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- As I mentioned below, I suggest reading the sources more carefully; aside from Donnelly's WP:FRINGE theories (which are the focus of the article), most sources are just a random assortment of people using the terms 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together, with no indication that they're talking about the same thing (for instance, the entire 'historical usage' and most of the 'Definition and reasons' section fall under this, while the 'Contributing factors in modern involuntary celibacy' is uncited, and what is cited is cited to a single WP:FRINGE academic.) This is not an article on a single concrete subject, but an essay by Valoem that has collected as many different uses of those words as possible in an attempt to argue that Donnelly's theories have more academic support (and have attracted more academic attention) than they actually have. We do not and should not have an article on every single academic theory, especially ones that are as fringe-y as this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Fork from sexual abstinence (First sentence of the article says 'is a form sexual abstinence'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to sexual frustration) as the topic is being reified (as I have discussed elsewhere). The term itself is a neologism that has been used in primary sources by Donnelly, some news media and books, but has not appeared in Review Articles, indicating it has not been taken up in medical/psychological literature. It is a POV Fork as mentioned above - inherent aspects would be covered in Sexual frustration, Sexual abstinence and/or Human sexual activity. Psychological aspects would be covered in topics such as personality disorder, social phobia, intimacy or anxiety/mood disorders or other disorders that inhibit relationships/intimacy. This is the ethical issue I have with this article in that it will divert a reader's (and possibly sufferer's) attention from psychological issues to some reified neologism and possibly delay them getting appropriate help. Which I think sucks. And is also why we should be using medical sourcing rules on these topics that border (or lie within broadly construed) health/medicine. Ok, a question for @Valoem: (and @Sandstein: to watch) - how is involuntary celibacy different from sexual frustration? and if no different, which is the notable term? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, To answer your question above, sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy are not the same thing. One can be sexually activity and still frustrated, one cannot be involuntary celibate and sexually active. The sources define this. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about someone who has one sexual encounter after several years - are they then disqualified? Or are they re-qualified after a while? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber sources have defined this as well if you have looking at Cunard's citations
Certainly, some people are celibate because they have chosen this lifestyle for religious or personal reasons. Others, however, would like to have sex but lack a willing sexual partner. For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology, and consequences of this phenomenon.
In this research, we define the involuntary celibate as one who desires to have sex, but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least 6 months prior to being surveyed. The 6-month mark reflects the reality that people often go without sex for weeks of months (Laumann et al., 1994), but after a certain length of time, begin to worry. We realize, however, the arbitrariness of choosing a specific length of time, and suggest that what is really important is whether or not persons define themselves as involuntarily celibate. As Thomas (1966) pointed out, "situations we defined as real become real in their consequences" (p. 301). Thus, for our purposes, length of time without sex is less important than self-defining as involuntarily celibate. Involuntary celibates may be married or partnered persons whose partners no longer desire to have sex with them, unpartnered singles who have never had sex, or unpartnered singles who have had sexual relationships in the past, but are unable to currently find partners. Involuntary celibates include heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals.
We used a life course perspective to understand the process by which persons become and remain involuntarily celibate. In doing so, we compared and contrasted three groups of involuntarily celibates, exploring the transitions and trajectories by which involuntary celibacy developed and was maintained.
. Her peers have cited her work which is allows her to pass WP:PROF. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: I must have missed that in the mass of material. So this gets even sillier...someone has a sexual encounter and then they are disqualified from the diagnosis for six months. How facile. It highlights then that it is a research term and is not for general use yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that you and Cunard(but mostly you) have over 50% of the word and character count on this page? Over 7,000 words, mostly just citing Donnelly and those who mention her even slightly. Over and over. One source, and others mentioning her. Yet over 7,000 words on this AfD, which shouldn't even be an AfD, because there was never any consensus to restore the damn article. Also, stop canvassing other editors. Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at sexual frustration!? It's just two sentences – a feeble stub – and so clearly not the last word on the subject. There is obviously lots of work to do here and so we shouldn't be deleting anything until such pages are in better shape. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, looking at how the real world views things, involuntary celibacy gets 197 results and sexual frustration gets 8210 results....40 times as much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page has existed for a long time in various forms (most recently as a userspace draft.) Nobody has ever been able to improve it in any way; indeed, this version is functionally identical to the version that was deleted in the last AFD, without any improvements. This is not surprising; it's an article on a neologism with almost no coverage in reliable sources. The aspects that are covered in those few sources are better handled under other articles rather than lumping it together under the neologism, while all the stuff that would be 'unique' to this is a mess of WP:OR consisting of every usage of the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together that the people trying to push the neologism were able to turn up on Google. That's not an article, it's an essay; and it's clear at this point that the term is incapable of ever supporting a proper article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pass of WP:SIGCOV. If this is not a medical topic it does not need to meet medical SNGs. Saying that this should be deleted for failing WP:MEDRS is like saying that Moses should be deleted for failing WP:PORNBIO. sst✈ 13:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep deleted there is no medical condition as involuntary celibacy, it is an internet/basement dwelling subculture thing and should be covered in that context. Sexual Abstinence or Sexual frustrationwould be a good redirect target. Not to closing admin that in the event of a no consensus close the default position is no article as that is the existing consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - Considering what enormous impact Wikipedia has, no wonder that this neologism is fought for. I don't have Casliber's medical and science background, but I do have all the other background to be able to dicern a little here - philosophy and theology - and the term celibacy and a lot of confusion in defining the subject. Wikipedia is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a WP:NEO that has some severe definition problems. If we do publish this article - it will blow - because these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. It needs to be written - if it should be written with great care, and not the way it is suggested now. that would not be proper and cautious... and - basically - involuntary celibacy is NOT different from sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the number 1 site in this case. When I tried googling this just now, Wikipedia was down around #5. Other sites were higher such as WebMD, which has a feature on the subject which seems to have been reviewed by qualified professionals. Our job is to summarise what's out there, not to insert our own views on the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nr 5 then... :) still high enough. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other 1) What is the difference between *traditional celibacy* - versus - *voluntary or involuntary celibacy* ? This part: ^{Reasons for involuntary celibacy can often overlap with reasons for traditional celibacy, which can sometimes make it difficult to discern between voluntary or involuntary celibacy, as some feel pressured to state that the celibacy is voluntary out of fear of severe social repercussions or violence}

Secondly 2) past - Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, was using the term in its classical form, e.g. to define unmarried persons in Christianity. Than means he was using it as its original meaning stands: as - celibacy as the unmarried state as the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. To bad, because THAT'S not involuntary. That definition, right in the lead is not correct.

Third. 3) Why isn't the word celibacy linked?

Finally 4) - What's with the errors with the citations?

Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is something that has come about primarily from a few special snowflakes on the internet. Coverage is transient and not significant. Per User:Spartaz, the default position should be no article in the event of o consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, keep deleted, what is this doing back? I am pretty sure we already settled this before. HighInBC 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And salt it, this has already received an inordinate amount of discussion. HighInBC 00:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the record: WP:I don't like it because it's a stupid expression because the proper meaning of celibacy is a voluntary condition. But don't delete because of that reason. There is no policy "WP is not stupid." However delete because the article is really about any way the two words together have been used in some sources. Of course there are many people, and have always been, who would like to have sex but are not. Their situations are better covered in other articles, not lumped together in this artificial construction. Borock (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the whole article could be included in whatever main article we have on "Human sexual intercourse" with one sentence: "Some people are not having intercourse for various reasons, although they would like to." Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant topic, especially in China where there are not enough women to go around. It's also significant to a lot of people I know who are paranoid about global warming (arctic methane causing sudden climate change, "near term human extinction" or NTHE) and peak oil leaving no future for their children. It's also significant that sexual frustration (call it whatever you want), can cause some people to lash out and kill others. I can't believe that we have to debate which topics to cover. It's bad enough that other controversial topics are carefully guarded and all manner of WP:XXX applied to keep those articles kosher -- wouldn't want to cause our readers to have cognitive dissonance. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are important issues, but I am still saying delete this article and keep the articles on the issues themselves: The China situation, sexual frustration, etc. Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So no policy based rationale for delete then. Okay. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "original research" and "neologism" apply.Borock (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and a two year halt on these discussions this article is a classic COATRACK that exists because of endless POV pushing. The subject of this discussion does not exist and is kept alive by an internet meme on reddit, PUA communities and 4chan. Also see Cas's comments above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although there are discussions of being "involuntary celibate" throughout history, "incel" as a concept on its own is new. The article does not address the incel movement and therefore misses the entire reason for there being a WP article on this topic. It is that movement that has made this a topic on its own -- it has given it a name, a body of literature, and has been key in much of the "hook-up" culture. If it doesn't include discussions like Salon or Stuff then the article is far, far from honest. There is an incel "movement" -- and to talk about involuntary celibacy today without addressing that is entirely missing the point. This article should say that there have always been folks who were involuntarily celibate -- women as well as men -- but that today it has become a rallying cry for a men's movement that 1) has become big business and 2) has spawned violence. The article could contrast past approaches to involuntary celibacy with current ones, and surely someone has analyzed why today's approach is different from the past. The only reason to have an article is because it has become an issue with a name. LaMona (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona The general consensus was to remove the content and leave discussion on the talk page. The readded per sources from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and Spartaz (talk · contribs) on DRV. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general arguments for deletion appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sources cited within the article clearly defines the subject. If sources do not provide notability than we cannot have an encyclopedia at all. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Sexual frustration. That article is brief as stated above but gee, it will get longer when this one is merged. I agree that "celibacy" appears to have "voluntary" as part of its definition, so "involuntary voluntary refraining from sex" is a nonsensical oxymoron of an article title. Yet the phenomenon of people being frustrated because of a lack of sexual activity, whether because of psychological quirks, lack of charm, imprisonment, youth, old age, or medical conditions is a real one and has the quality and amount of sourcing to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just a WP:COATRACK for rambling nonsense. Artw (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Coatrack (I don't think so) or wide-ranging subject? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Strong delete and salt, having read the discussion further. In addition to being of no value this article appears to be an attractive nuisance for time wasters. Artw (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artw (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it "nonsense" that there are people who at some point in their lives would like to have a sexual relationship but are frustrated in that desire? That seem to be the viewpoint of an" idontlikeit" faction. Presumably they have always been able to have sexual relations with someone any time they want, and for some reason it angers them that anyone else would deny that is so for anyone else. Have they never been horny with no relief for it but taking matters in their own hands? Edison (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OR is not relevant here, user. Artw (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and this time really do so. How long should we be mocked by this POV-pusher? Until finally someone succumbs to his wishes to establish a neologism in enWP? This can be put in one or two sentences in the article about Sexual frustration, that#s it. This quarterly sham with the resurrection of this rubbish is just disgusting. Stop this extreme time wasting effort and bugger off, Valoem. Will you finally listen to the other editors? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per following reasons:

Here is the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally (2005). Readings in Family Theory. SAGE. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-1-4129-0570-1.
  Page 14 has a section about involuntary celibacy. This is a citation of the study listed below ( Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis)
  For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology and consequences of this phenomenon ... we define as one who desires sex but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least six months [...] but after a certain length of time begin to worry.
2. Sex and Society. Marshall Cavendish. 2010. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-7614-7906-2.
  The book notes:
  Involuntary celibacy:
  - In addition involuntary celibacy is used to describe individuals who have not chosen to be celibate but who find themselves for various reasons in the position of wanting to engage in sexual activity but not having a partner.
  - Anrenee Reasor (2013-10-29). "Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students". The University Daily Kansan. Retrieved 2015-12-28.
    The website notes:
    Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students This may not be news to college students, but some people remain sexually inactive through no choice of their own. A desire for sex exists, but no prospects do. There's a term for people who can't get laid: involuntary celibacy, or 'incel.' A longer definition explains: “Involuntary celibacy is chronic near-total or total absence in a person's intimate relationships or sexual intercourse that is occurring for reasons other than voluntary celibacy, asexuality, antisexualism or sexual abstinence.” I think we can all remember that person on our floor freshman year that was involuntarily celibate, no matter how hard he or she tried. But incel is not something to be taken lightly. Newscaster Christine Chubbock committed suicide live on air in 1974, and it was believed that incel was a root reason. As a 30-year-old virgin, she'd suffered unrequited crushes and severe depression.
  - Denise Donnelly; Elisabeth Burgessb; Sally Andersonb; Regina Davisb; Joy Dillard. "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research Volume 38, Issue 2, 2001. Retrieved 2015-12-28.
    The study notes:
    Using a life course perspective, we explored the development and maintenance of involuntary celibacy for 82 respondents recruited over the I'nternet. Data were collected using an open‐ended electronic questionnaire. Modified grounded theory analysis yielded three groups of involuntary celibates, persons desiring to have sex but unable to find partners. Virgins were those who had never had sex, singles had sex in the past but were unable to establish current sexual relationships, and part‐nereds were currently in sexless relationships. These groups differed on dating experiences, the circumstances surrounding their celibacy, barriers to sexual activity, and the perceived likelihood of becoming sexually active. They were similar, however, in their negative reactions to celibacy. Pervasive in our respondents’ accounts was the theme of becoming and remaining off time in making normative sexual transitions, which in turn perpetuated a celibate life course or trajectory. (This study is peer review and cited over 40 times)
  - Elizabeth Abbott (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81041-7.
    The gives a two page description:
    Involuntary celibacy - Often celibacy is an unbidden state, imposed by circumstances, for instance in modern China with its skewed sex ratio or in apartheid bound South Africa where rigid work and travel permits could confine one's marriage partner to a white city, the other to a black township. The American Civil War, which killed of a generation of young men, also doomed their sisters to spinsterhood as maiden aunts, burdensome family charges, and underpaid schoolmarms.
  - Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.
    This source is from 1916 and uses the term involuntary abstinence to describe the same thing, if naming is an issue that can be corrected:
    Considering the imperious nature of the sexual instinct and the consequences resulting from the failure to gratify it, we must consider the causes that lead to sexual abstinence. For our purposes we may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence to take the latter first results from causes beyond the individuals control and often without his knowledge.
Edison and Sänger ♫ Here are sources showing a cohesive topic with significant coverage. Do you still feel this is disruptive? Artw we generally agree, am I making a mistake here? And if so what is wrong with the sources I provided. Donelly's work has been cited by multiple sources and has been peer reviewed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex and Society mention is only passing. College Newspapers are never used as sources to establish the notability of a topic. Abbott 2001 has already been discussed at length how its reliability is questionable. And there is no link between what Spooner 1916 looks like grasping for straws. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after some further digging, Donnelly et al. 2005 is a primary source and is not used to make claims of notability. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cas Liber. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt. The term itself is a neologism, but the current article is essay full of original research by Valoem, assembling every source which uses the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together to give the artificial appearance that the term has academic meaning. Attaching eg. Valoem's collection of unrelated sources about the Ming dynasty to Donelly's WP:FRINGE opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is WP:OR; and the entire article is essentially composed of such things. The few meaningful sentences that could be parsed out ("sometimes people are celibate involuntarily") belong in celibacy and are not sufficient to support an independent article, while Donelly's theories are not remotely high-profile enough to support their own article (again, they deserve at most a single sentence in celibacy, if that.) I would also like to ask that people stop restoring this article to Valoem's user-space; this is, by my reading, the third time that he's requested it there for discussion on something else, which ended up with it moved to mainspace for another AFD discussion. This version doesn't even have any significant changes from the version that was AFDed before; relisting it like this in hopes that one of its repeated AFDs will eventually fail to gain consensus is an abuse of process. At a certain point you have to drop this sort of issue per WP:DEADHORSE and accept that the community has decided that this is not a topic that can support an article. The repeated re-creations and attempts to go around the process on this mean that it requires salting, beyond just deletion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cas Liber, To answer your question above, sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy are not the same thing. One can be sexually activity and still frustrated, one cannot be involuntary celibate and sexually active. Those sources above can all be used, these are some additional sources all defining the concept which is clearly notable:

Colette Bouchez. "Sexless in the City: Involuntary Celibacy". WebMD. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

This study was reviewed by Michael W. Smith, MD

One click around the TV dial, one flip through your favorite magazine, and it's hard to ignore: Sex seems to be everywhere -- with everybody doing it more often, with more partners, in more ways than ever before.
But what if you're not one of those people having sex on a regular basis -- and particularly if you are someone whose life is void of virtually all sexual activity?
If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.
"These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Sex Life on Hold By the time they decide to open their life to a partner, Luloff says they can feel so far behind their peers in social skills or even sexual prowess, it drives them further away from achieving their relationship goals.
"You simply don't know where to begin -- so you just put off starting, and as time passes, and your feelings of frustration and isolation grow, self-esteem falls even lower, creating a vicious cycle of discontent that makes it even harder to find an intimate partner," Luloff tells WebMD
Indeed, in a small but significant study published in 2001 in the Journal of Sex Research, doctors from Georgia State University found that folks who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with feelings of anger, frustration, self-doubt and even depression -- all invariably linked to living without sex.
But while celibacy may be the hook upon which many of us can legitimately hang our cloak of discontent, psychiatrist and sex therapist Barbara Bartlik, MD, tells WebMD that for just as many people, living without sex may be more of a symptom than a problem... (continued)

Amanda McCracken (2015-05-16). "OPINION: Are we entitled to sex?". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

Here is a article from Aljazeera explained the subculture of misogyny in attempts to prevent it

Involuntary celibacy:

The incel mindset
Many of the men who sent me nasty emails after I published my essay might be labeled “incels” (involuntarily celibate). Its most recent poster boy was 22-year-old virgin Elliot Rodger, who went on a murder spree last year in Isla Vista, California. Rodger felt spurned by the women who were having sex with other men on campus and entitled to get laid.
Rodger may appear to be an outlier, but there’s a growing community of angry, sexually dissatisfied men who blame both women and other men for their situation. Rodger’s initials have become permanent glossary entries on men’s rights activism (MRA) websites. The Red Pill Movement, according to one MRA forum, seeks to spread awareness of the negative effects of “feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers … and to seek truth no matter how painful or inconvenient the truth may be.” For these men the “truth” lies in getting laid, no matter the consequences. In today’s sex-positive society, as sex becomes increasingly synonymous with human rights, incels feel denied what they consider “rightfully” theirs.
Does one woman have the right to tell another woman what isn’t sensually valuable or a wise investment? Incel-sympathizing turns sex into an entitlement, a mindset that bleeds into popular culture. Consider the scene from the film “Bridesmaids” in which Kristen Wiig’s character Annie, stranded on the road after her car dies, calls a casual hook-up buddy to pick her up. He does, only to suggest she give him oral sex in exchange for his kindness.
“You can totally lie down in my lap if you want,” he says. “Just take a little lap nap … if you want … open for biz.” It’s an expectation we see in movies over and over: men putting in a certain amount of time with a woman and expecting sex as a reward.

These are some sources from studies unrelated to Denise Donnelly

Alison Liebling; Shadd Maruna (17 June 2013). The Effects of Imprisonment. Routledge. pp. 94–. ISBN 978-1-134-01239-8.
This is a study of Involuntary celibacy on prisoners by John Irwin and Barbara Owen cited by Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna and distinctly uses the term involuntary celibacy.
Another lasting effect of involuntary celibacy is a distortion in prisoners sexual tastes and desires. Irwin wrote about the impact of living in the monosexual prison world: "Being a convict was making voyagers out of us pictures of women became powerful stimulants one day I was walking down the tier and glanced down at a newspaper lying on the floor. I spied a picture of a woman's face that grabbed my attention I stopped picked up the discarded newspaper and stared at the face. She was overwhelmingly beautiful to me but then the ache set in deep in my gut. The possibility of being closed getting to know romancing a woman like this was completely absent.
Philip Gatter (1 January 1999). Identity and Sexuality: AIDS in Britain in the 1990s. Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-33341-7.
The book notes involuntary celibacy in regards to HIV:
- ... or of not being able to cope with the emotional demands of living with someone whose Health might gradually deteriorate for a few there was an abiding sense of no longer being asexual mean that the risks however small, meant involuntary celibacy, or at the least that it would be difficult to find sexual partners while being honest about HIV status.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Sarovar Bhavesh[edit]

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

not yet notable. "Young scientist award" indicates this. The other awardsare similarly student awards, not national level awards for professional accomplishment at the highest level. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 29 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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Young Scientist award" is given to independent scientist below age 35 by the National Academy of Sciences of India and this was given in 2009. After that he received award at the Indian Science Congress, the biggest science body in India. He has supervised three PhD students already and now he is the group leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelsb (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC) — Neelsb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Further, he is an editorial board member of Scientific Reports, A journal from Nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelsb (talk • contribs) 09:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IUPAC award is an international award. While awards from National Academy of Sciences, India and Indian Science Congress are reputed one given to Principal Investigators. He is senior researcher in a UN organisation.182.68.79.140 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC) — 182.68.79.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:NOT YET. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete a well respected young scientist who rose fast. Just because he is coloured some people want it to be deleted. You must see his recent contribution on ALS disease. Profile of much less achievers are on wiki. Please do not see from a racist eye.14.139.62.210 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly biased if not racist view of DGG and others who failed to see that most of the awards are given by National academies. They are not student awards. He research work have been mentioned as news in journal like Nature. All references are cited. You can search his work on google. Biased views against Indian may be avoided.120.59.163.116 (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC) — 120.59.163.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Awards are too minor/junior for notability. He has a couple of well-cited publications but is in middle position in the author list of both, not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON, etc. and admonish against the accusations of racism; there is significant WP:BIAS on Wikipedia, including against Indian, but DGG is one of the people at the forefront (along with Eppstein) of reminding people of this and looking deeper for more sources. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Now it certainly proves that some biased people are on prowl. For them Indian National Science academies are of no value. International Union (IUPAC) are are not notable. Work on ALS and stress tolerance mechanism as lead researcher and news reports are also not notable according to some of commentator above with colonial mindset. For them anything even tiny in west is notable but Indian Science awards and associateship is small. Shame on you. You need to look at 17 references cited. His h-index is 15 and about 1000 citations of his publications. Strangely even this is not notable to some. 182.68.79.140 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)— 182.68.79.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking second vote by same SPA IP. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG.Fails WP:PROF is upcoming but clearly not enough at this point to pass WP:PROF#C1 and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be individually recreated in a non-copyvio form if they individually pass WP:N. Sandstein 12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"200 Great Gay Bars"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Series of articles about bars in the United States, whose only substantive or sourced claim of notability in each case is the fact that one magazine gave them each a 25-word blurbette in a "best gay bars" listicle in 2013. Each of the articles just consists of a single statement that the bar exists, and then quotes the entirety of the blurbette verbatim, and then the end. Which means that in addition to lacking any genuinely substantive claim of notability and not citing nearly enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, as written these articles are also violating WP:COPYVIO. Delete all, without prejudice against some of them being recreated in the future if something substantial and original can be written and sourced about them. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but please hear me out since I created the stubs. I apologize for creating subpar stubs, but I meant well. I have been working on LGBT-related articles in Portland, including CC Slaughters, Egyptian Club, Stag PDX, Three Sisters Tavern, etc., and I was merely attempting to get the ball rolling for other cities, too. My goal was to fill a content gap and increase the number of LGBT-related articles by creating stubs for what I thought were notable establishments. I used Out's list as a means to create many short articles. A few of these stubs have been marked for, and saved from, speedy deletion because other editors acknowledged they had potential for expansion. Since these stubs are clearly suspect to some editors, I've stopped creating more. I imagine many of these stubs are for establishments that could/should have Wikipedia articles, but I'll let others decide. Sorry for being too aggressive by creating too many stubs that don't make notability evident from the start. But don't let my eagerness to get the ball rolling result in a mass deletion of possibly notable establishments. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to a topic like this, the correct approach is not to create a massive series of stubs about possibly notable establishments by copyvioing a listicle from some other publication — for each topic you want to address, the baseline that has to be met before the article even gets started is that you've already found enough sourcing and substance to demonstrate that the topic's notability is already definite rather than just possible. That is, the onus is not on Wikipedia to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially given the copyvio problem — rather, it's the creator's job to put at least enough work into the topic to ensure that no doubt exists to require any benefit-giving. Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvios, if what is stated above is correct in each case. Any individual article may be recreated if sources for it can be found, but it is too much to expect editors to take it on trust that all N stub topics are notable without evidence in the form of citations. If it were a single article then no doubt we could be expected to search for sources here at AfD, but with such a large search task it simply isn't reasonable. The stubs are accordingly malformed and should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with no prejudice against recreation, as long as sources are provided to establish notability. Since all of these articles are copyvio stubs, nothing is lost. sst✈ 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I PRODed Mad Myrna's, which began exactly the same way as the last article I nominated for deletion. Sources are supposed to back prose, not the other way around. Seeing enough of this lately causes me to wonder if this is how people are being taught to edit Wikipedia. What I saw was the barest minimum of prose, offering next to zero useful information, simply to justify a WP:COATRACK to a list which is no Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time plus other cloaked linkspam. Mad Myrna's location does hold some notability within Alaska's LGBT community. Don's Green Apple was a successful business from the 1950s to the 1970s, known to this day among Anchorage oldtimers as a LGBT-friendly establishment. Its successor, Pierce Street Annex, wasn't necessarily a gay bar but was known for hosting national comedy and musical acts. After Pierce Street moved to Tudor Road (which later became Hooters before closing in 2008), other gay bars including Mad Myrna's have occupied this spot, but none can make a comparable claim of notability. The location is the de facto ground zero for Anchorage's LGBT community and social scene, as Anchorage's other gay bars in recent history and the LGBT-friendly Anchorage Press are within a three-block radius, as is the Sheraton Anchorage Hotel where transgender balls have been held regularly for years. Still, it's no Chilkoot Charlie's, which has received attention from major mainstream national media outlets for longer than Mad Myrna's has been in business yet lacks an article. The lack of acknowledgment of any history and lack of acknowledgment of the existence of categories for drinking establishments evident in this one article appears to be repeated across other nominated articles I've browsed, bringing to mind WP:POVFORK as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or else delete per Bearcat; reliable sources demonstrating notability need to be found before an article is created, not left for someone else to find eventually (or not). If the author likes they could all be taken to the author's userspace pending the addition of enough sources to clear WP:GNG; otherwise they should all be deleted, with no prejudice against recreating them if someone locates appropriate sources.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need/want all of these moved to user subpages. I was just trying to create some stubs for people to expand over time. I do this all the time, but in this case editors are taking issue with my method (I think copyvio is a bit of a stretch... these are exactly the sorts of comments we see in reception sections at Wikipedia). I would bet some of these establishments are notable, so it would be a shame to see content deleted, but I'll be fine. I've stopped creating similar stubs and I will just go back to focusing on the individual establishments I want to write about. I am sorry for creating what is being deemed as unworthy content, but I did mean well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. While I haven't harped on this too much lately, I've been rather critical of the constant condescending attitude shown by WP:AFC participants towards subpar content submitted there, all the while tons of subpar content exists in article space, including articles which began life as AFC submissions. Then there's the editors who mass-create two-sentence (or two-paragraph), one-source stubs which languish that way for years and years. However, none of that absolves or excuses the copyvio or notability issues raised in this case, which is what's being discussed. As I pointed out with Mad Myrna's, simply being the latest incarnation of a possibly-notable lineage doesn't quite establish the notability of that particular entity, which brings to mind WP:NOTINHERITED as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think there is a condescending attitude shown by AFC participants, and think too much content is marked for deletion without proper research first. But, I also recognize that there is a constant battle being fought against promotional content, spam, vandalism, etc. I have noticed that there are higher expectations of newly created content than in years past. Historically, I've been praised for creating so many new articles, even stubs, but stubs are less welcome now. I think it's too bad, but it is what it is. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take Sidetrack, for example. Just doing a Google search for "Sidetrack" "Chicago" yields plenty of sources, which I posted on the article's talk page and copied below:

Possible sources for Sidetrack, Chicago

http://www.sidetrackchicago.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/chi-musical-mondays-showtunes-sidetrack-boystown-story.html
http://chicago.metromix.com/venues/mmxchi-sidetrack-venue
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130604/boystown/sidetrack-bar-sued-by-conservative-christian-ex-employee
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/chicago/bars/gay_business.php?id=58
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/chicago-gay-bar-boycotts-stoli_n_3652936.html
http://www.timeout.com/chicago/bars/sidetrack
http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/170254/rahm-emanuel-celebrates-sb10s-passage-at-iconic-boystown-gay-bar-sidetrack
http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?item=202&todo=view_item
https://www.zagat.com/n/sidetrack-chicago
http://chicagoist.com/2013/07/25/popular_gay_bar_sidetrack_removes_r.php
http://wgntv.com/2013/07/27/chicago-gay-bar-sidetrack-boycotts-stoli-vodka/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/25/chicago-gay-bar-pulls-russian-vodka-in-protest-of-putin-signed-restrictions/
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Chicago-Plans-Celebration-Events-Following-Gay-Marriage-Ruling-310093261.html
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/gay-night-clubs-chicago-24626.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=LIQZlV0VNyoC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/June-2015/Rahm-Emanuel-Gay-Marriage-Video/
http://halfstackmagazine.blogspot.com/2014/03/sidetrack-chicago-sneak-peek.html

These may be subpar stubs, but that doesn't mean the subjects aren't notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources for Spin, Chicago

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140526/boystown/spin-nightclub-closed-beloved-boystown-gay-bar-officially-shuttered
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/SEVEN-Dance-Club-set-to-open-in-former-Spin-Nightclub-/51877.html
http://chicago.eater.com/2014/5/27/6217817/boystown-landmark-spin-shutters-to-make-way-for-a-whiskey-distillery
http://chicago.eater.com/2015/3/5/8158581/spin-nightclub-return-boystown
http://www.windycitytimes.com/lgbt/Spin-Nightclub-was-the-luckiest-accident-for-owner-Gassman/47763.html
http://chicago.metromix.com/events/mmxchi-gay-is-the-new-black-event
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/top-lists/5-top-boystown-gay-bars/
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/lavender-menace/2010/02/women-lead-mass-boycott-of-spin-nightclub.html

Possible sources for Denver Wrangler

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26273670/regulators-denvers-wrangler-bar-discriminated-when-it-turned
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/11/13/watch-queer-protesters-allege-discrimination-denver-bear-bar
http://www.westword.com/location/the-denver-wrangler-5167675
http://www.westword.com/news/vito-marzano-wins-first-battle-against-gay-bear-bar-he-says-is-biased-against-effeminate-men-5902238
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/usa/rocky-mountains/denver/entertainment-nightlife/other/denver-wrangler
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715942/Colorado-Bar-discriminated-against-man-drag.html
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/04/colorado-gay-bar-discriminated-against-man-in-drag/
http://www.timeout.com/denver/nightlife/denver-wrangler

Keep on the basis of an uneven bulk nomination without prejudice to renominating individual articles. My kneejerk reaction was closer to delete (or userfy/draftify until AB expressed disinterest in that), but looking at the sources available (primarily those linked by Another Believer above), it's clear there's a case for notability for at least a couple of them. Since that's the case, the blanket deletion rationale must be something along the lines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (or WP:COPYVIO, but that doesn't look to apply to all of them, if it applies at all, and those which do have the quotes can be fixed pretty easily) and/or WP:TNT. This doesn't look like a WP:TNT to me, but nor am I sold on all of these being appropriate. This is why I tend not to like bulk nominations -- because when they're not more or less interchangeable, the discussion gets messy. So I'd like to see these nominated individually, because there are at least a couple I'd be !voting weak keep or keep on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general these articles do not pass WP:N. There may be a few exceptions and I am open to articles being independently recreated that have sources that augment and support the single reference that this group of subjects shares.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: First off, this is entirely the sort of situation justifying why mass deletions are part of deletion policy in the first place; I see no merit in unbundling this into dozens of individual nominations (just so people can then complain about a zillion nominations they Don't Have Time To Research). Secondly, I believe Another Believer dug his own grave right here: "My goal was to fill a content gap and increase the number of LGBT-related articles by creating stubs for what I thought were notable establishments." May I ask upon what basis he thought these local businesses were notable? Other than that they were in this article, that of course not being acceptable? Absent doing the actual work to find sources justifying an assertion of notability before creating an article, there's no basis here to keep. Ravenswing 09:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed a gay magazine's list of the best gay bars in the world meant something. And I think it does. The Out quotes were just meant to be the start of reception sections for these establishments. I'd bet most of these bars have been covered by other reliable sources, as evidenced above. I am not offended that these will likely be deleted, but I am not sure we are improving Wikipedia by doing so. Hopefully I, or someone else, can get around to re-creating the articles at a later date. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that Wikipedia is improved any time a NN stub goes away. If you do choose to recreate any of these articles, I hope and trust you'll follow proper procedure for doing so: finding sources which satisfy the GNG, then creating the article, then including those sources in the article you're creating. Ravenswing 14:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Ravenswing's analysis regarding the group deletion is warranted is spot on. While some of these might prove to be notable (I did spot checks on several, and could find nothing but routine notices, listings, etc), I don't feel the extra volume of work which would be put on folks to have to comment and research each one is worth it. The few I spot checked certainly did not pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If He Dies He Dies[edit]

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

I would've PRODed this if not for the local attention but it seems that's exactly what this band is, locally known with no better signs of better notability and improvement and my searches finding nothing else but some local news articles. Notifying tagger Niteshift36. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some local buzz, but doesn't meet WP:BAND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it turns out, the "local buzz" isn't that real either. One source is a news satire site that fails RS and I've removed it. Another source didn't say what the article claimed and the sole remaining source is a dead link. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC, and searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needle writing[edit]

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

While "writing with a needle" appears to exist and does get a few hits on Google, unlike the subject of this article (which appears to be about writing on paper or other surfaces with needles), "writing with a needle" appears to merely be a form of embroidery. As for the subject of this article, I couldn't find much coverage about this practice, and Google gives so many false positives that I doubt that coverage even exists, otherwise it would have shown up quickly. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is totally new so you all unable to read much more on this topic and about embroidery is totally different because in this pattern cotton real go through with the needle but in needle writing only needle work and words appeared..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannuMannu (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a new form of art then I'm sorry to say that it might be too soon for this to have an article here. Wikipedia's notability guidelines suggest that topics need to have had coverage in reliable sources, which right now this is lacking. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in evidence, and no assertion of notability in the article. I note that the article's sole source simply gives a brief blurb about some guy who needle-wrote a book. If this really is a form of embroidery, then this article's brief content might be added to Embroidery or some other appropriate article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have found some references to needle work writing but nothing on this article's subject. Article creator states it is new form so is also likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of European football clubs[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not contain excessive lists of stats. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average attendances of non-football clubs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average attendances of association football clubs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadium attendances of Asian Football Leagues. MER-C 05:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per consensus from previous AfDs on very similar articles Spiderone 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on several similar articles. Aspirex (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and WP:NOTSTATS. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winningreen[edit]

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

An old, unreferenced, orphan, stub article. Google searches turned up nothing apart from mirrors of the article's contents and hits for the company's own website. It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find a few Chicago Sun-Times pieces by the firm's CEO, but nothing substantial about the firm itself, such as anything which could reference the claims in the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better notability and nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not shown.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 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) 20:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

No indication of the geographically disperse coverage in reliable sources required by ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local chamber of commerce with nothing else to suggest a considerably or even minimally better notable and improvable independent article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't expect geographically wide coverage of a local organization of this type, and SLO is a small-ish town distant from major urban areas whose normal business would not get noticed by regional media. I was able to find this and this, in local media, but that's not much. I also looked to see if/how WP covers Chambers of Commerce -- there are individual articles for a few large cities (Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce), but chambers for towns the size of SLO do not get stand-alone articles. The chamber gets one sentence in the San Luis Obispo, California article, so presumably a few more sentences could be added there. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a number of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in local media, but nothing to substantiate notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:LaMona. The appropriate place for information about anything noteworthy for this organisation, such as any material impact of their Economic Vision document, would be in the article on the city itself. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 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) 22:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlid al-Nabi Celebration Permissibility[edit]

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

Book that has been tagged for notability since April 2015. Fails WP:GNG (specifically reliable+independent sources) based on GNews and GBooks results, as far as I can tell. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm actually more concerned with the WP:NOTADVERTISING violation, though this might not be apparent to those who haven't followed the drama of the book's author. Qadri's followers have spammed Wikipedia for years, getting a number of themselves banned for reacting combatively when confronted with their promotionalism; he's a notable person but not everything he does or says is notable, and this random book he's published with no fanfare seems (I can't read minds, but we have several years of precedent to surmise this) like another failure to understand that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show the book passes notability criteria. Also, the WP:DEL4 would hold sway. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 5 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 speedy deleted per G7. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viorel Păiș[edit]

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

Reads like a CV and has no inline references. Version was here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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 redirect to Sid Hartman#Works. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sid![edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Article is entirely a summary, table of contents and citation for the book – very advertorial and no assertion of notability. Nsteffel (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOKS. Could not find any reviews. Held in few libraries (<40 in Worldcat). Just not notable. LaMona (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sid_Hartman#Author. I did find this mention, but that's about it. It's mentioned occasionally in passing and referenced occasionally here and there in places like this, but by large there's really not a lot out there. A redirect seems the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sid Hartman § Works. Not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Augustin[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ARTIST and her suicide doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E relating only to Gypsy Rose Lee. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daivathinte naalvayikal[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable book, if it exists. CarnivorousBunny^talk 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book's title seems to be more commonly transliterated as Dhaivathinte Nalvazhikal. --Bejnar (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book may exist, the Ernakulam Public Library has cataloged a copy here but gives it a status of "not issued". It was published by Green Books. I found no coverage of the author. The only review I found was an image of a Malayalam review that had been posted to Facebook here, although I did find several booksellers willing to sell a copy. Both author and book appear to be totally without notability. Book fails WP:GNG and has no basis for notability from WP:NBOOK. I did search the Malayalam title as given in the Wikipedia article, but got no hits. --Bejnar (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bejnor and fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and restart later if better sourced and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarstica scholarship portal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and appears to be WP:ADMASK in my judgement. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and I could not find any that would be RS. I've seen a number of these scholarship portals and don't quite understand their motivation. This one serves Nigeria. It isn't clear where they get their information (possibly scraping other sites) nor what their funding model is. On the surface they appear to be providing a service for folks looking for scholarships or jobs in academia. This doesn't, however, establish notability for WP. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per criteria cited by Cubbie15fan —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:17, 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 keep, noting that the nomination has been withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visio.M[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a research project at a university Dweller (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely nothing notable about this. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) 22:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: I have added several German media articles, including a road test of this vehicle. This may be one step beyond articles such as those of EU FP6 projects, in that it has not only consumed significant government funding but has a functioning vehicle and seems to be continuing towards productionisation, which maybe just tips the balance for me. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage that Ally has added amounts to a story in the Munich paper Abendzeitung and two German automotive publications. I'd say it does just meet GNG including WP:AUD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the media coverage. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely, thank you people. Nomination withdrawn - please can someone close this AfD asap. It's done a great job. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firefold[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources to demonstrate that the requirements of WP:CORP can be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and lacks independent third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A local firm going about its business, but I am finding nothing that indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 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) 23:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dewas Gate Stand[edit]

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

Unremarkable geographical location. A Google image search brings up many unrelated photos, suggesting that the location isn't very notable. One image of the bus stop did appear however, and it's a tiny bus terminal. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference I could find was in an obscure travel manual on Google books saying that the Dewas Gate was accessible by a nearby stand. That was it. Definitely fails the notability guidelines. Nomader (talk) 07:56, 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} 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Slovenia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable country level feeder to Miss Earth. Has been tagged with COI for a long time. No RS. Fails WP:ORGIN and can not pick up any notabity from the franchiser per WP:INHERITORG. Many sister country articles have been deleted in the last year. Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. The pageant has many third party sources written in Slovene and the pageant is shown via TV3 in Slovenia Here's a sample uploaded by jay dance studio website . You can hardly find sources for "Miss Earth Slovenia" because English is not the language spoken in Slovenia. The following are some sources:
- Novice.si has written an article, [Zrečanka Laura Miss Earth Slovenia 2015 Zrečanka Laura Miss Earth Slovenia 2015] google translate.
- 24ur.com Tokrat smo dobili kar dve Miss Earth ... and google translate
- Zurnal 24 To so finalistke Miss Earth 2012 and google translate
- svet24.slS ponosom nosim lento Miss Earth Slovenije 2014 and google translate
- novice.najdi.si Atlantis captured muscles and google translate
- novice.najdi.si Jinny Ribič: Na invalidskem vozičku

In this google translate link, you will see many articles related to Miss Earth Slovenia, HERE. --Richie Campbell (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. As the above comment demonstrates, there is a sufficient media coverage for the event and the title holders. As for the article, there's always room for improvement. --Tone 10:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: The reasons are disclosed here and I agree to them. We can improve an article and not necessarily deleting it just like that. Just include the credible sources and improve the quality of writing in this article and I guess the issue will be solved by then. Artchino (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Angola[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and has not even sent a rep to the big pageant yet. Sole source is self-source. Lacks any indepth coverage for an article per WP:ORGIN and a subunit or affiliate does not inherit the parent's coverage. Over a dozen country level article for this organization have been deleted over the last few months as seen here: [23] so there is good precedent to delete. (some at AfD, some as creations of banned users). Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources outside of Wikipedia through the usual types of searches. Definitely a non-notable piece of the pageant that fails WP:GNG to stand as its own article.. Nomader (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Miss Angola article. Miss Angola selects Angola's representative to Miss Earth, Miss Universe and Miss World; Vaumara Rebelo was Miss Angola Universe 2012.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No delegate has been sent yet to Miss Earth and I guess the organizer itself is unstable so there's no need for an article... for now. Artchino (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Gapasin[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is primary or about cases he worked on, not about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sources do not talk about him and do not go in-depth into his life and career. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimo Kim Musical Theatre Factory[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Cubbie15fan (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Human3015^TALK 22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Curro2 (talk) 21:43, 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 redirect to Berserker. Consensus not to keep as an article. Whether to redirect elsewhere, or merge in part, etc., may be subject to further discussions and editorial consensus. Sandstein 12:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berserker (character class)[edit]

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

Article has not developed a single citation in nearly 10 years. In-depth discussion of any of the mentioned character classes in independent, reliable, secondary sources appears to be nil. The various games mentioned usually cover this class already, so there is neither need for an independent article nor do there appear to be sources to provide evidence if its independent notability as one either. KDS4444^Talk 03:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable stand-alone topic/term failing WP:GNG with no multiple, reliable, secondary sources such as WP:VG/RS focusing on the topic itself in-depth. There are many mentions and many examples that have RSes discuss them, but no sources tie the different examples under the same umbrella term. They just happen to use the same name, which could have as well been a synonym. As it stands, the article is entirely WP:OR in joining the examples under the same topic. This is also unsuitable for a list, as there are no RSes with something like "list of games with berserker class" as their topic. And excluding the (arbitrary) examples, the article has no real content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/source and merge into Berserker - The merge proposal was IMO garnering consensus; I suggested on the merge on the talk page saying This is something important (depictions of "bers/zerkers" in video games), but probably not enough for its own spin-out, and would be better covered as a section in the existing article about the concept of Berserkers., and both Someguy1221 & 2ReinreB2 were in rough agreement that the topic of "bers/zerkers in video games" was definitely important enough to cover, although most of the unsourced in-universe WP:GAMEGUIDEish content of this AfD'ed article would need to be trimmed down heavily and sourced. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also agree to merge, if there was any sourcing in the article. It seems anything we add to the main article will be new material and mostly examples. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trim/source and merge into Berserker Agree with Salvidrim, merge into a "Depiction in modern media" or similar such section. All of the content should be sourcable (Primary source, if nothing else, which should be fine for that), but the existing article itself is not notable and is an assorted collection of gamecruft. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Fantasy character jobs#Berserker or delete. From a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, it's possible to verify that individual games have a berserker class, but the topic itself is never discussed. I don't see any discussion of how these video games roles fit into wider berserker lore, either. We don't need an unsourced example farm imported into berserker, but I guess we could redirect this to what seems like the most prominent example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Certainly not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Dante[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't see that evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Although, this debate was recently closed as "No Consensus" with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as simply none of the listed coverage suggest a better notable and acceptable article here. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough evidence of notability here in regards to WP:NMUSIC Major radio play and interview from Playboy Music Spotlight on Playboy Radio has yet to be added. Playboy Radio is a worlwide music station with it's own notoriety. ^[1] This artist also has published works in upcoming National Commercials and Broadcast TV shows, links will be provided when released. Artist music has also been curated by Pandora Radio and Getty Music.JohnatDegRecords (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://soundcloud.com/pbrmusicspotlight/playboy-radios-music-spotlight-with-lucien-dante

Streaming platforms don't count toward meeting WP:NMUSIC #11: only terrestrial radio networks count. Placing music in commercials doesn't count toward NMUSIC #10, and placing music in TV shows only counts if it's the show's main theme song. And no criterion in NMUSIC can be passed just by asserting it, either — the criterion is not passed until it can be verified as true in reliable sources which are independent of the article subject. (For example, even if a television show does pick one of his songs up as its main theme song, that criterion still isn't passed until reliable sources start writing about the fact.) "Reliable sources" means real newspapers, real music magazines, books and the like — not blogs, not Kickstarters or Bandcamps or Facebooks or Soundclouds, not university or college student media, and not press releases from the artist's own record label. Also, as a representative of his record label you have a conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No criterion in WP:NMUSIC can ever be passed just by asserting that it's been passed; it's passed by reliably sourcing the accuracy of the claim to passage. But the sourcing here is parked entirely on Tumblrs and blogs and social media profiles and student media, with no evidence of coverage in any sources that would count for anything toward the meeting of WP:GNG. And the claims to passing NMUSIC provided above aren't just unsourced — they're claims that actually wouldn't count as NMUSIC passes even if they were sourced, because they fall entirely too far short of what the NMUSIC criteria actually demand. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which any musician is entitled to an article just because he exists, nor is it a public relations platform on which his record label is entitled to promote him. Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice against recreation in the future if his sourceability and notability ever improve. Bearcat (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me thank you for letting me know how the process works, could have been less hostile but helpful none the less. The very last place I would come for any type of promotion would be here at Wikipedia as I don't consider it promotion to inform the public that want to know more about him. This artist has performed as part of a major broadcast television event in Germany called the Teddy Awards, the biggest awards show in Germany dealing with LGBT artistry and talent, he had a "terrestrial radio" interview as part of that and a "real" German newspaper had an article that "talks" about him. At this point I will back out of the process to remedy the conflict of interest claim and will leave it up to the general public to add or edit as long as this page stays up. Thank You! JohnatDegRecords (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet notability of WP:MUSIC and therefore is TOOSOON. Delta13C (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Sadeghi[edit]

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

While this article has been around a while, this subject appears to be not notable and little third party sources can be established. Most references are either primary sources or otherwise non-reliable. Pages that link here do not have reliable sources to establish what is claimed. From a review Glrx and I have established him to be an associate professor and simply creating an resume/cv online. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see WP:N in English sources. The source for "Expert of Structures, Infrastructures, Marine and Offshore Structures Engineering" is his CV. I have followed some links to sources in other languages, but they are mostly short and do not show notability. KS has started a bienniel conference, but the significance of that conference is not clear. If it were a significant journal, then he'd fall under a WP:ACADEMIC prong. The highest academic rank I can find is associate professor (ICJE June 2011; 2015; Near East University, September 2015, https://neu.edu.tr/academic/faculties/faculty-of-engineering/academic-staff/assoc-prof-dr-kabir-sadeghi/), which is two rungs below WP:ACADEMIC's distinguished professor -- and that does not even consider the stature of the institutions (e.g., see Girne American University in List of maritime colleges#Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus stating, "not recognized by Ministry of Transport, Maritime and Communication of Republic of Turkey"). KS has published at least one book (1995, SIMULATION NUMERIQUE DU COMPORTEMENT DE POTEAUX EN BETON ARME SOUS CISAILLEMENT DEVIE ALTERNE [Numerical Simulation of Concrete Posts Behavior in Shear Alternative Derivation?])(article claims 2 books), but its impact is also not clear. Looking on WorldCat shows that the book is his doctoral thesis. One expects the average professor to have a few books and several journal articles; I don't get the sense that those articles have had significant impact in the field. My searches come up with few hits; a Google search peters out after a couple pages; better results may be had by searching for his non-Anglicized name. There are some substantial research claims in the article such as FEM models for analyzing reinforced concrete structures, but the article does not show the importance, acceptance, or adoption of those models. That brings us to the crux of an ordinary WP:N issue: where are the secondary sources that tell us the primary research is important. There's apparently a book about KS (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kabir-Sadeghi-Russell-Jesse/dp/5508095551), but it's published on demand with no Amazon reviews. Looking at Google Scholar, only 7 of his articles have been cited more than 5 times; the most was cited 16 times. His book/doctoral thesis is cited 7 times, but 6 of those are self-cites. The citations less than 5 are predominately self-cites. The most cited was by 15 journals and 1 book; I couldn't get a snippet view of the book (ISBN 978-81-322-2276-7). KS clearly has a field and has published research in that field, but I do not see notice in the ordinary press or significant academic rank. Glrx (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – prior history. It looks like this article has been challenged before. One of the recent edits to the article claimed the article had been around for 8 years, but the current article history indicates a 10 March 2012 creation date. Looking at User talk:Dr. kabir sadeghi shows an article named Dr. Kabir Sadeghi was nominated for speedy deletion in May 2009 under WP:A7 / notability; a conflict of interest was also raised; the article was subsequently userified. Glrx (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while researching this issue, beyond what I mentioned in my nom, I saw what appears to be multiple attempts to assert notability through extensive wikilinking most of which is not supported through reliable, third party sources. Many of the times, not even primary sources were available (although they were errantly referenced as such). I cleaned up many of the poor wikilinks and references. It appears that attempts have been made over the years to establish this BLP as notable, through actions, references, and links, which appear to establish notability. However they often fail. I think around half of the references I removed from other WP articles used either wikipedia directly, or mirrors as references, which of course, doesn't work. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also notified appropriate project page. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Conflict of interest just makes it worse. Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 01:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vesselin Vassilev[edit]

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

I don't find that this Vesselin Vassilev (it appears to be a somewhat common name) is covered as required by WP:GNG, and no claim is made that amounts to notability under WP:BIO. Having exhibited in galleries (other than at the level provided under WP:ARTIST) and having had buyers doesn't amount to notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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} 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible this passes artist notability, but it's in French so it really needs someone who speaks that language. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It's in English. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources when I searched this individual was written in French. I don't know what other editors do, but I actually search for sources. The majority of sources for this person is in French and possibly Bulgarian. And yeah, there is translator, but that still increases a greater possibility I'm going to miss something. If you want me to make a judgement based on what I found, I'd have to go with Keep since I see that they are in a few curated museums, however, I still believe the language barrier is a definite handicap here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 09:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. You had written "it's in French". With no explicit antecedent and given the singularity of the pronoun, I understood "it" to mean "the article" rather than "sources". —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Core Inc.[edit]

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

Obviously paid/COI editing. No indication this meets WP:CORP

Article suffered from massive WP:BOMBARDMENT which I removed as excessive and unmanageable.[24] Maybe there's something there which meets WP:CORPDEPTH but I doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a product that is due to be available in 2016 based on an indieagogo funding campaign. It may never materialize. I removed the non-RS and only two remain. Much too soon, and undoubtedly motivated by PROMO. LaMona (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local company with no better signs of solid notability and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising. Article obviously creates for major product launch in 2016. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Mkdw ^talk 06:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firangi[edit]

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

Although, the article doesn't specify any revival of the channel despite written as an Advertisement. Fails WP:GNG D'SuperHero (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:21, 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} 00:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huntley Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Fails NAUTHOR and GNG John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is now better notable and improvable. Delete as my searches found links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps not enough for a convincingly better notable article. Notifying Tokyogirl79, LaMona and DGG who frequently participate at these AfDs as often as I. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, a search brings up lots of reviews which I will list after chrissy Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reviews in nn publications don't do much to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some (mostly) reviews of her books (looking at previous afds, you will find that most/all of these sources are deemed okay) - The boy most likely to: PW - [25], School Library Journal - [26], theYoungFolks.com - [27], Paste magazine - [28]; and My Life Next Door: The Boston Globe (this review is extremely short but sweet:)) - [29], Publishers Weekly - [30], Lauren Morrill (I know she has no wikiarticle(yet:)) - [31], Kirkus Review - [32]; and What I thought was true: PW - [33], Kirkus Review - [34], BookList and School Library Journal - [35]. I have added these to the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 27 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) 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The many reviews of her work now cited in the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A WP:AUTHOR pass per multiple independent book reviews from reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 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 keep. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikha Noora Bint Khalifa Al Khalifa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, written and formatted like a résumé — I seriously haven't seen this many bullet points in one document in at least a decade — and parked entirely on blurby little press releases for sourcing. A businessperson does not automatically get to keep an article, much less a résumé, on Wikipedia just because they exist — it takes reliable source coverage, it takes passing a WP:BIO criterion, and it takes writing an actual article...in, like, y'know, prose. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:31, 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} 00:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst the article clearly needs rewrite (...but AfD is not the venue for article improvements), the person concerned is clearly notable. The article in its current stage fails to mention that the person is a member of the Bahraini royal family and clearly a notable figure. See [tt_news=5207&cHash=d02cfd5897bbf4327277e50ef93d4ca8] for example. --Soman (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article does need to be rewritten into prose. As previously stated, she is a Bahraini princess with a number of sources that indicate that she was allegedly facing charges of torture in 2013. This is notable in itself. The article needs to be worked upon - but there is nothing in the article that suggests that it needs to be deleted. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 21:23, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ViewQwest[edit]

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

Unremarkable internet service provider. The article is written in a very promotional tone as well, with 4 sources listed. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you're right about the promotional tone but this company would seem to be notable. Cnet article [36], The Straits Times article [37], Channel NewsAsia [38], Yahoo [39] (although this last one is borderline at best). I got all of these from a quick Google search: someone who spent real time looking these up could find a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomader (talk • contribs) 07:52, 22 December 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [40], [41], [42], [43]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at best as this seems to satisfy at least minimally. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going over the hits on Google News, it's a little sparser than I'd like, but there's enough coverage there to satisfy me. A few have already been highlighted here. Plus, the CNET article above is from the US, which demonstrates international coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Uganda[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIN and does not qualify for GNG via WP:INHERITORG. Over 12 Miss Earth country articles have been AfD deleted or deleted for being created by sockpuppets that built a lot of this fancruft. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. The The National Forestry Authority (NFA) of Uganda in conjunction with Uganda's National Environmental Management Authority (Nema) is the organizer of the national beauty pageant, Miss Earth Uganda according to this source. There are many acceptable sources from news agencies in Uganda and Africa for this article:
- All Africa:Miss Earth Uganda Finale Set for September 5
- All Africa: Pearl Asasira Is Miss Earth Uganda 2015
- All Africa: Uganda: Miss Earth Uganda Finale Tomorrow
- New Vision: NFA, NEMA organize Miss Earth Uganda 2015
- The observer (Uganda) Miss Earth launches in Uganda
- The observer (Uganda): Pearl Asasira is Miss Earth Uganda 2015
- Uganda News: Miss Earth Uganda Wins Gold
- Topix: NFA, NEMA organize Miss Earth Uganda 2015
- Uganda 24/7 News: Miss Earth Uganda, Sandra Akello wins gold in Austria
- The Observer: Miss Earth Uganda finale--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:56, 28 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) 01:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per sources listed above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, the sources available have either nothing to do with a subject or are related sources. The pageant started only in 2015, so the three other pageants just drop out of the sky. No evidence that this preliminary round is important enough. The Banner talk 04:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. For example, these bylined articles are entirely about the subject, and are not affiliated with the pageant whatsoever: [44], [45], [46]. See also WP:BELONG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: I believe the article passed the notability guidelines. If there are some issues with the content, a revision is a much better solution than deleting the whole article. Artchino (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any particular agreement as to whether the sources in the article are of sufficient depth to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Monet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails gng and pornbio, producing a documentary about porn is neither breaking through to the mainstream or multiple Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she may not pass pornbio, she does pass the GNG. As Morbidthoughts pointed out in the first AFD, she has several pages covering her life and career (up until that time) in the book Sex Carnival (pages 59-65).1 And some more to add to that just isn't porn site interviews and such. 2,3, 4. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few page mention in a minor book is not enough to overcome failing the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was more than just a few pages, 7 pages actually. And per the GNG, that is not trivial coverage. The Vice piece wasn't exactly trivial either. It's not even a porn site. And the guidelines for pornographic actors (pornbio) isn't be all and end all for notability if the subject passes the GNG. If she weren't a porn star, I doubt there wouldn't be much of a debate if she notable enough for an article if she got this amount of coverage. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon further research, Monet has appeared in two porn related documentaries (Rated X: A Journey Through Porn and Pornstar Pets) so she could arguably pass #3 of pornbio. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentaries about porn aren't mainstream are they? Arguably primary sources too.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Documentaries I just mentioned are carried on DVD by netflix and other vendors (bestbuy.com for one) that don't carry hardcore porn, so I'm guessing they don't feature explicit sex. So some may consider it mainstream. I guess opinions may vary about that though. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes the GNG per Wikiuser20102011. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:50, 25 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) 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to barely pass GNG, and the article could use some work. Delta13C (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cannon[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only referenced in fan site and blog. Not notable and was only a nominee for a significant award. Meatsgains (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet satisfying actors notability guidelines. Notifying tagger Largoplazo. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dash[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources added since then? Affirmative. Article has information? Affirmative. Solidly satisfying actors notability guidelines and roles that are not simply background characters? Not yet. Simply nothing else to suggest this can become a better article compared to an IMDb listing. Notifying PRODer Cyphoidbomb. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article subjects should have multiple significant roles to trip the notability filter. Tattooed Gang Member, Banger #2, Murderer Boyfriend just ain't cutting it for me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hits on Google News seem to be about someone else, but even if they were about him, they're just trivial mentions. I don't see anything else, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Farris[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable actor. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried searching for coverage for his films, but only found one review. If there'd been enough to assert notability for the works then that would have given him notability but he just doesn't seem to be there yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. No interviews or anything at Fangoria, Dread Central, or Bloody Disgusting, where one would expect to find such coverage. Too soon for an article yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 4 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.

[1] ttp://www.bsnpubs.com/motown/tamla/tamla.html

[2] ttps://www.flickr.com/photos/a_tom/8307389738

[3] ttp://soul-sides.com/2009/07/miracles-motown-and-memories.html

[4] ttps://soundcloud.com/pbrmusicspotlight/playboy-radios-music-spotlight-with-lucien-dante

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]