Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 December 4 December >

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.  Sandstein  08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel)[edit]

Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear indication of notability NottNott talk|contrib 23:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The publication of a novel is exciting, but fans of this book need to be aware that there would have to be things like reviews or feature articles in scholarly journals or in edited, general circulation publications (i.e. major newspapers) before a novel can have a Wikipedia article. I could find none. Reviewers searching for notability should be are that "up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside" was a Mao Zedong- era slogan. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Kirkus review is unusable since it was done via Kirkus Indie, where you can purchase a review from the site. Despite the site's claims of being unbiased, there's no way that a paid review can be considered a neutral source for Wikipedia's purposes. (And there's been some talk that Kirkus itself has some serious issues with reliability.) I'll see if other sources exist, but I wanted to throw this one out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is notable per NBOOK. There's just not anything out there that isn't primary in one way or another. On a side note, the publisher is sort of interesting, although forum threads like this one do set off warning vibes. That's all an aside though and mostly just something interesting about things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The novel has been selected as one of Kirkus's Indie Books of the Month for January 2016 - does that help at all? Will post a reference to that when it comes out (probably in January). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qc418 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but no. The problem with Kirkus Indie is that it requires payment before they will do or write anything about a book or author. In other words, in order to be a book of the month they had to pay for Kirkus's services in the first place. It just wouldn't be seen as a non-partial source since it'd be in their best interest to promote something that they were paid to review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hogtown (film)[edit]

Hogtown (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an "upcoming" film some years ago but it is hard to work out if it ever surfaced. The refs are very niche and two look like regurgitated press releases. Nothing here appears to satisfy WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed one of the reviews from the reception section since it was quoted from this article, which was written the month before the screening. The description gives off the impression that the author could have seen Hogtown, but there's no guarantee that they did. I'd consider it usable as a RS to show notability but just not as a review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: Go ahead and put it back. The detail of the removed article makes it clear it was based upon a quite common instance of his seeing a pre-release screener. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like it did screen in 2014 and it received some reviews from various different outlets. I'd say that there's enough for it to pass NFILM now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was this rewritten since it's nomination for deletion? Looking at it now appears fine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)[edit]

Priscilla Chan (philanthropist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough here for GNG. Most all info out there is still shirttail stuff to her unambiguously notable husband. Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several major news media have had articles about her in which she is the main topic. She is an important philanthropist. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow KEEP She is being independently profiled in the press; I'll do a little sourcing. Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses extremely notable people. We have whole categories (categorized by state) of political spouses alone. Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed. The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything. He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin). WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc. It does not matter what a subject is notable for. We hashed out similar issues in a recently closed-as-keep AFD on Candy Carson. Profiles in major media are the gold standard of BPL notability. Chan has them. We should make her name direct to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - according to Slate magazine, Chan has a "formidable influence" on Zuckerberg's philanthropy [1]. Having a formidable influence on a $45 billion foundation (which bears her name before Zuckerberg's) makes her notable beyond reasonable doubt. See also Melinda Gates, another famous philanthropist who starts out as a billionaire wife. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several newspapers in Chinese describe her since the "donation" event."不是鳳凰 臉書執行長祖克柏的亞裔妻子"."祖克柏當爸 捐臉書99％持股「給後代更美好世界」"."薩克柏愛行善　受老婆影響大". She is become famous not only in the U.S., but also in Chinese. Zero00072 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I'm personally on the fence as to whether Priscilla is independently noted enough for her own merits to warrant a separate article, keep in mind that she needs to be noted for more than just family connections to have her own page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband – actually the undisambiguated name Priscilla Chan has always been an article about a Hong Kong singer. There's a move request to send that to Priscilla Chan (singer) so that Priscilla Chan could be either a WP:TWODABS + 1 typo or a redirect to information about Mark Zuckerberg's wife (whether that's its own article or a subsection of his article). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The recent growth in the number of sources that are distinctly about her has increased recently and are reflected in this article, supporting the claim of standalone notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Way beyond sufficient separate coverage in reliable sources; nominating women for deletion because they have notable husbands is a Wikipedia trend that needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - In "Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)", with the exception of information about Chan, the only thing that I can see that is not mentioned in Mark Zuckerberg is "The Primary School". For this reason, if the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Mark Zuckerberg per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the sources cited by the article show, she obviously generates enough press coverage to be notable. Even if much of her activities are connected to her husband, the fact that she is going to be directly involved in the allocation of $billions of philanthropic funds, makes her a figure of independent interest. The obvious comparable is Melinda Gates. The Gates Foundation has had a major impact on the world, making the key figures involved in it figures of public interest. The same is sure to be true here as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has become notable enough that her biography will be of interest. The alternative of keeping a large section on Zuckerberg's page devoted to his wife seems to be decidedly worse. Note that even though she might not have founded Facebook, she is currently a billionaire. She also closely advises Zuckerberg on, among other things, his recent forays into China leading to the possible unblocking of Facebook and future competition with the Chinese web giant Baidu. Several verifiable claims to notability like this have not worked themselves into the page yet, and once they have, notability should be easily met. Give editors some time. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Absolutely meets WP:BIO. What a nonsense for AfD. STSC (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • # of page views argues for keep [2], I think we can slose as WP:SNOWBALLE.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hewlett[edit]

Jason Hewlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Non-notable. Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion. Ffffrank (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is true that, "Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion." I'll add: boring. Which is not smart for a comedian. Some fan should come fix it. The article does have a list of links to sources; lousy sources. Several are in real news outlets, but, as I said, unpersuasive when you click. So I ran a simple google news search on his name. I don't iVote delete without running a search. And I was stunned by the hits. Here's my search:[3]. Turns out that is a "family-friendly" (i.e., no foul language) comedian, with real coverage in real newspapers: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] OK, so those were all in Utah, which, as many of you know, is not really part of America. (joke) I kept scrolling, and next up a long feature article an interview in Forbes: [9]. There are more. But I'll stop here except to say that Nom ought to have WP:BEFORE before taking up our time with this. Bad article does not always = lack of notability. In this case, it may only mean that there are whole, vast swaths of America where nobody is interested in editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Thanks for taking the time to do some research. I did read WP:BEFORE and to be perfectly honest, this is all new to me and it is possible that I skipped a step. Your sources do demonstrate... something? Not sure if it rises to level of "notability" but it may. I suppose at the least, I find fault with the content of the article and it doesn't appear that the content has generated much interest or editors over the last few years. There are a lot of facts but they do not seem to come from relevant and published secondary sources. I'm assuming they come from a press release. I don't feel comfortable removing 90% of the articles content but perhaps that is a better solution and will inspire one of his fans to fill it back in with properly cited information? --Ffffrank (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've been there, run searches and missed major stuff stuff. I think the newspaper stories I linked to plus the Forbes article are dispositive. and that your next move should be to withdraw the nomination. I totally agree with you that this paltry, old, neglected article is a problem, it's a widespread problem. There are a lot of article like this out there, Articles in desperate need of editing. I just don't think AFD is the solution. Encouraging more people to come edit might be. I'm outta here. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and welcome. I'm fairly new myself. Frankly, I found the place so off-putting (aggressive, mean-spirited) that I would have quit - except that there is a group of POV editors working to push me off. It made me so mad that I decided to stick around. I hope you will, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Concert review: Hewlett dazzles fans with talent for mimicry". DeseretNews.com. 11 October 2007.
  2. ^ "Arts Hot Ticket: Jason Hewlett featured guest at Clean Comedy Festival". Daily Herald.
  3. ^ "SCERA to Host Free Evening with Jason Hewlett, 9/6". 25 August 2015.
  4. ^ "Jason Hewlett will perform 'An Evening for Ashlee' benefit". 14 April 2015.
  5. ^ "About Utah: He's going public (again) for a very good cause". DeseretNews.com. 19 April 2015.
  6. ^ "Noted impersonator Hewlett to deliver free fireside at SCERA". Daily Herald.
  7. ^ "This Show Is Absolutely Safe For Work". Forbes.
  • Delete -- The content reads like self-promotion by a performer. He seems to have had a full-time contract for some years in the mid-2000s, after which the biography seems full of gaps. This probably means that he was earning his living by other means and only occasionally appearing as a performer. This suggests to me that he has commercially been a comparative failure, which in turn suggests that he is NN. My concern is with notability, not sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puzzled by Peterkingiron's comment. Sources are how we gauge WP:NOTABILITY. The sources cited above are significant, extensive, in-depth... As for a putative career break, it makes no difference to notability (WP:nottemporary) and is OR, but note that the Forbes article ran fall 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Even if citations were added for the achievements listed on this page, the subject would still not qualify for his own wikipedia page. I agree with the previous comments that the article reads as self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep changed to delete. I see this a lot: a subject has a knack for creating press for himself without any kind of notable achievement that has had an impact or created significant recognition. Even the opening sentence of the Forbes article cited here admits the guy "isn't famous." And yet the self-created press seems plentiful enough that it *does* fit within WP:NOTABILITY rules. Personally I'm frustrated by the scores of such folks of marginal entertainment industry achievement meriting Wikipedia entries based on local "appearing-on-stage-tonight"-type press clippings---often the result of their own PR efforts---but those *are* the rules. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what the Forbes article says. It credits him with having renounced the chance at a mainstream career out of Christian commitment, and with having a notably successful professional career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm. E.M Gregory's comment here got me to take a second look at the Forbes article. Unless this appeared in the print version--and considering this "article" serves as a gateway to the columnist's weekly live on-line interview on social entrepreneurship---I'm thinking this is not significant coverage at all. It has little over 400 views. Views of his online (You Tube) posts also number in the hundreds. This is why I'm now changing my vote to Delete. This subject is no doubt successful as a corporate entertainer, but that doesn't mean he's notable. I'm even more convinced now his greatest talent is beating his own drum. I should note a recent online story about cheating-but-not-cheating on his wife went viral, racking up hundreds of thousands hits. But this "story" appears more of a "plant" rather than independent coverage, attesting even more so towards his ability to gin up his own coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I pretty much blanked the page, rewrote what I could source. page had not been updated in a long time. Accused here of self-promotion, Hewlett certainly did not update his page when he resumed his stage career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Editors new to AFD should understand that the question we address here is not whether the page is well-written, promotional, or even whether the page is sourced. Our question is whether sources about the topic exist (even though they are not currently on the page) and whether they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. As experienced editor User:Northamerica1000 notes above, it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN page is entirely re-written. I believe that in its present form and sourcing, it would not be brought to AFD by any editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I disagree with the concept that we don't delete articles which are highly promotional per WP:DEL4, that can be a valid reason, I don't think this article, especially after the editing done in recent weeks, qualifies per that rationale. And since that has been taken off the table, the sources clearly pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're understanding the popularity of cricket in India. Even in the 1950s, when cricket was followed less fanatically, a local cricketer making the state team could very well have made the front page of a particular city's newspaper. The matches in which Narain participated are far from everyday – the Ranji Trophy has been the pinnacle of non-international cricket in India since its inception, and during his time that was even more the case, as there were fewer teams than now. It's purely speculation to suggest the sources exist, of course, and the language barrier means I won't be the one to find them (unless somewhere along the line they're digitised and translated, which seems unlikely). You could argue that we shouldn't allow articles based on the mere possibility of sources existing, but I think if you allow A. Haslam to have an article then Narain has to have one too. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the two cases as polar opposite. One had a career that included captaincy of a team that won an Olympic gold medal. The other had a mediocre performance in a couple of games.SageGreenRider (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is seriously flawed and does not hold water. NCRIC presumes nothing. It states categorically that anyone who has played in a major match, which includes a first-class domestic fixture in India, is notable. As NCRIC or GNG must be satisfied, this player Narain is notable. He meets NCRIC so GNG doesn't matter. Furthermore, you are making presumptions about Indian cricket and its newspaper coverage that are way out of line. Your whole campaign against these articles, stubs though they may be, amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | talk page 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NCRIC explicitly makes a presumption. It reads in part A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she... (my emphasis). I believe GNG trumps NCRIC. GNG is policy. NCRIC is a merely a guideline. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! GNG and SPORTCRIT also explicitly use the word presumed. The key point is that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". Note that the word "or" is in there. This means that if the subject meets the SSC it does not also need to meet the GNG. Okay? And given that the primary SSC for cricket is playing in a major match, this subject is "presumed" to be notable. If you would like me to explain to you about major cricket in India, do let me know. Bye for now. Jack | talk page 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please WP:NPA. Your claim was "NCRIC presumes nothing" , however that is not correct. It offers a guideline that presumes notability based on one or more appearances. To presume means "To assume to be true (without proof); to take for granted, to suppose." A guideline is a guideline, nothing more. I believe that following the guideline leads to a false conclusion in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then your belief is wrong. And when have you been subjected to a personal attack? Is saying "Wrong again!" a personal attack!? GNG and NCRIC are both guidelines that presume notability. GNG is not superior to NCRIC because the subject has to meet one or the the other and not both. You are trying to twist the guidelines to suit your own purposes instead of reading and abiding by what they actually say. And don't come on here making false accusations about NPA, either. Jack | talk page 19:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that "Wrong again" is a personal attack, then that is ridiculous for way too many reasons to list here. BlackJack simply stated that, for occasion > 1, your opinion was wrong. Nothing to do with a personal attack. If you're going to invoke dictionary definitions, I might as well invoke mathematics. Bobo. 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for "consensus", I still stand by my belief that there *was* no "consensus". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6&diff=prev&oldid=694016031)Bobo. 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok So you now admit there is a presumption. Good. And I'll allow you one "Local boy makes good" article in the local rag. But GNG is more stringent than only one source. It insists on multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources. It is not plausible that such sources exist in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Narain is implausible to say the least. There's simply nothing to write about. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I wouldn't be so sure there is nothing more to write about: there were two cricket annuals in India at the time he played, and one of them at least apparently carried biographies of all current first-class players (it was edited by Dicky Rutnagur). Maybe someone has or can find a copy? Johnlp (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - we appear to be becoming bogged down in numbers. How many appearances do you think should be appropriate to keep a cricketer on Wikipedia, SageGreenRider? Bobo. 21:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bobo192 I think one appearance is sufficient if and only if the NCRIC presumption (that such an appearance triggered substantial coverage by reliable sources, which may or may not be to hand) is plausible. I do not believe that the presumption is plausible in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Surely the burden of finding a more reliable source lies on the person who is questioning the reliability of the quoted source - and from hence, governing it by their own criteria...? Bobo. 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | talk page 10:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if anyone has the energy to go through Wikipedia and tag indiscriminately for deletion every single one of the thousands of sports stars in every competitive team sport who have two or fewer appearances at top level, they have some considerable stamina! Bobo. 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry @Bobo192. Remember that scene in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones? As part of my evil pan-galactic conspiracy to expunge all mention of cr*ck*t from important documents like Wikipedia and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omission and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and second, it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on the cover) I have a huge clone army of socks ready and willing to do my bidding. PS This is an attempt at humor to defuse a tense situation. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SageGreenRider - I know, I know, thank you for being understanding throughout all of this. (Signed, Beephod Zabblebrox). Edit: Never seen this reply-to template before, I like it. Bobo. 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • U r welcome signed pord fefect... Be sure to hang on to ur towel SageGreenRider (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is one question unanswered which is that multiple sources are required. We had CricketArchive as an external link only, which is admittedly not how citations should be recorded. I've found a second source in ESPNcricinfo and have put both of them into the body of the article/stub as inline citations. These are both reputable sources, especially ESPNcricinfo, and may be deemed reliable for this purpose. As for other "unknown" sources, there will be plenty. Johnlp has rightly pointed out that there are Indian cricket annuals, at least one of which provides biographical info re major cricketers. And there is Wisden, which will almost certainly have a reference if anyone has access to the relevant edition and can find the right page(s). In terms of primary sources, Indian newspapers carry extensive coverage of cricket matches (and I mean extensive; it matches coverage of football in GB) so there are certainly newspapers in archives that would tell us much about this player. The problem for us is finding them. So, in practice, we have to rely on CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI) to verify that this man did exist and did play in at least one officially recognised first-class match (per CRIN and NCRIC). It is worth mentioning that CA and CI being in accord adds strength to the verification because they do not always agree. Finally, to summarise our main argument, Narain played in a first-class match and he therefore satisfies the sport specific criteria (SSC) of NCRIC for presumed notability; which also means that reference to GNG in his case is superfluous because the rules clearly state he must satisfy either GNG OR SSC, not both. Jack | talk page 07:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Force of habit from me I'm afraid. I tend to put all the information in the article and then a single external link - from which all the information in the article can be derived and validated. I see so many occasions in which the same links are quoted in the references and the external links, I never used to see the purpose of this. The question from me is whether I should have included both a CI and a CA link in all articles. Bobo. 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion. In my opinion, it should not be necessary but, given the circumstances of cases like Narain and Perera and the rest, I think it would be wise to cite both. Also, use inline citations as an external link is often not seen as a reference because it is actually the equivalent of "further reading" for books. Jack | talk page 12:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (mainly for @Bobo192) You say you have added hundreds of articles like this. During your contributions, have actual reliable sources with substantial coverage surfaced in cases like the five we have been debating recently? What I'm driving at is this: if you can show a pattern where this type of track record triggers coverage, you might have a case to argue against my belief (that such coverage is implausible). I know your presumed sources are unfortunately AWOL in these five cases. But some similar cases must yield something (games played in the era of the internet, for example). You could use such a pattern to extrapolate to this one. Make sense? hth SageGreenRider (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most cricket biographies have begun as stubs which have one or both of CA or CI as an initial source. This is because we have, as a project goal, the creation of an article about every major cricket person and these two sites provide readily available listings of most if not all the players concerned. From that beginning, hundreds if not thousands of the basic stubs have been expanded as we have found extra information about the players in books like Wisden, Playfair, etc. or on the websites themselves, especially CI which tries to give each player a potted biography. We still have more stub-class biographies than start-class but there is no reason why the vast majority will not in practice be developed, given time, or in theory all of them. Jack | talk page 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK but can you point me to some specific examples of articles about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was -- shall we say -- modest and whose article contains citations to substantial coverage in reliable sources? SageGreenRider (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try Arthur Coleridge as a one-match player who started out as a basic stub, but turned out all right in the end. Johnlp (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article. Thanks. He played cricket once for Cambridge University, but his bio published by them only mentions his legal career and his music. No mention of his cricketing for them at all. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, for that, you would have to go to the reliable Cricketarchive and Cricinfo websites, which was where I started from without knowing anything more than that he had played a single first-class cricket game 160+ years ago. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SageGreenRider I'm not certain how to answer this question personally, because the basis of deciding what makes and does not make a reliable source is really an opinion of the individual questioning it. One person's opinion of an "actual reliable source" can, as I'm sure you'll understand, vary greatly from another. As for people with a single first-class appearance and a decent career, however you wish to phrase it, that's really up to individual opinion and therefore I can't answer it. The guidelines we work to have *one* criterion, are easy to follow, easy to understand, easy to adhere to, and therefore, easy to weed out the unacceptable. If we start inventing new criteria, where do we stop? Bobo. 17:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK How about you give me what you consider to be the three best articles about about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was modest. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that, for the reasons I explained in my previous comment. Bobo. 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... OK How about give me the three that have the most citations returned by the Wikipedia Reference Search link (wrs) in the tool {{Find sources 4|article title goes here}}. By the way, NCRIC isn't an objective, hard-and-fast rule. It's merely a guideline. It says in part (at the top where the anchor is WP:NSPORTS) Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. Didn't even bat. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)[edit]

Farook (Saurashtra cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor (Delhi cricketer)[edit]

Manzoor (Delhi cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NATURAL[edit]

NATURAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another 4GL but without a single meaningful reference despite being around since 2006. Fails WP:GNG. I can see nothing especially notable about this which maybe why there are no refs  Velella  Velella Talk   19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My searches are mainly turning up firms proposing migration from ADABAS/NATURAL rather than in-depth coverage of the 4GL itself. A comment on the article Talk page suggests that reference material is available to licensed users on the vendor's site, but that would be primary sources. NATURAL itself already has brief context coverage on the ADABAS and Software AG pages. Falls short of WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing to even suggest minimal general notability so delete for now until a better article is available. Notifying past user Macrakis. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - due to the commonality of the name, researching was difficult. Did not find any information on the searches which seemed to be about this particular subject. Ping me if someone turns up in-depth reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lee[edit]

Angela Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter, only three professional fights - non-top tier. Does not meet WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter since she has no top tier fights. Her pankration titles were as a junior, which does not show notability. So she doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters, martial artists, or the GNG since there's a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned by other editors, she fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Article's been made in to a redirect by the editor below so <smmall>(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsaan syed-hussain[edit]

Ihsaan syed-hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dupkicated page Cricarchive (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an artifact of a page-move to correct capitalization. After opening this discussion, the page was nominated for speedy-deletion. Speedy-deletion has been declined. I see no reason for regular deletion, either. Redirects for capitalization variants are routine and sometimes helpful. I would not deliberately create a redirect like this but once created, there is no value to deletion. Keep. Rossami (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I converted it back to a redirect. —teb728 t c 13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Knight Studios[edit]

White Knight Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than the an under-construction website for the company I can find no indication it even exists. Absolutely zero evidence of notability seems to exist. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete seems to meet CSD A7 to me – no credible claim of notability that I can see └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That's embarrassing. The website under construction isn't bad except that it appears to be a newly registered domain. That tells me that they aren't even off and running yet. Nothing in Google to even lead me close to the door of notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably should have been speedily deleted. Onel5969 TT me 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Animal Welfare Party. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudson[edit]

Vanessa Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Hudson has never been elected. She heads a very minor political party, that has never achieved even 1% of the vote in any election they've stood. All the material here could be better covered under Animal Welfare Party. The article has 3 citations: the first is not independent, the second is to a minor local publication, while the third is more substantive, but the latter two are both covering Hudson's candidacy, so this comes under WP:NPOL that says being a candidate alone is not notable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be more interesting than those sources: [13]
That is an interview with Hudson about her party's campaign in an election. Such material is better covered under the party than the individual, as per WP:1E. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the leader of a political party, even a minor one, can be enough of a claim of notability if the sourcing is solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it does not constitute an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and the level of sourcing here isn't good enough. And being a non-winning candidate in the general election doesn't provide any sort of notability assistance at all. Until such time as there's enough substantive and properly sourced content about her to justify a standalone BLP, the appropriate solution is for her to be briefly discussed in the party's article rather than spun off like this. Redirect to Animal Welfare Party or delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat and nominator. My sweeps did not find much. Fringe party, not many votes, not much to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Change to Keep as per Vanamonde93's weigh-in, below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearcat is correct of course, and in such a situation I would ordinarily tend delete; but when looking, I found the following; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Of these, 1 and 5 in particular strike me as substantive enough to let the subject meet GNG. Bearcat, Tomwsulcer, what do you think of these? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those items, even 1 and 5, are about the Animal Welfare Party's campaign in the 2015 Euro-elections and about Hudson as leader and spokesperson for the party and its campaign. As per WP:NPOL and WP:1E, you can have lots of material about someone but if it's all about a specific event (which in the case of politicians means all about a specific election campaign), then it is generally more appropriate to have an article about the event, not person. In this case, as I see it, that means those citations can and should be used in the article for the Animal Welfare Party or for that particular election. What I have not seen is anything showing notability for Hudson beyond that campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello again. Let me start by correcting myself. The citations given aren't all from the Euro-elections: they span the Euro-elections in 2014, the general election in 2015 and the Tower Hamlets mayoral by-election later in 2015. My apologies for my earlier error. Citation 1 is from 6 May 2014. Very little of the article is about Hudson as a person; nearly all of it is about the Animal Welfare Party's political positions and their 2014 Euro-election campaign. Citation 2 is from 1 May 2015: it is a local newspaper with a short mention of Hudson. Hudson is standing in at the hustings for the Animal Welfare Party's candidate in the 2015 general election. There is nothing in the citation about Hudson: it is all about the party's policies. Citation 3 is about the Tower Hamlets mayoral election in June 2015, with Hudson standing. It includes merely half a sentence about Hudson and the AWP. Citation 4 is about the same mayoral campaign: there is a brief mention of Hudson and, again, it's all about the party's positions and nothing about Hudson as a person. Citation 5, which is the same as the citation given higher up, is from April 2015 and is about the general election campaign. This is an interview with Hudson, but again about the party and its campaign. There is nothing in it about Hudson as a person. WP:GNG requires coverage of the subject of the article. These citations demonstrate that the Animal Welfare Party passes WP:GNG. They do not, as far as I can see, demonstrate that Vanessa Hudson passes WP:GNG. There is certainly some wiggle room in the guidelines and judgement calls are needed. However, I don't see the material here to populate an article about Hudson. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Thank you @Bearcat: for the logic. Most people don't get that in depth. In this case, that is a great assessment as even failed politicians can be notable under WP:GNG. Unfortunately, the information I am finding is more specific to Animal Welfare Party where this should be redirected. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, possibly merge somewhat. Coverage seems to be mostly about the party rather than the person. Can be spun out again if she gets more coverage personally.  Sandstein  20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Rankings[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of FIFA World Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a translated page from Lijst van FIF wedreldranlijsten on the Dutch language Wikipedia. It is, simply, a data dump of the top 3 ranked national teams by month in the FIFA rankings, plus the position of Belgium and Netherlands. The page is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; it is an indiscriminate dump of statistics and nothing else. FIFA World Rankings currently exists documenting the current rankings and monthly leaders, as well as other ranking-related records and prizes. This page's added-value - listing 2nd and 3rd for each month - does not seem worthy of an encyclopedia page.

Clearly, if kept, the page would need renaming but that can be left to deal with in the event of that outcome. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : arbitrary at best. Perhaps the list at the end of the cumulative times teams have been 1st/2nd or 3rd could be incorporated into the FIFA World Rankings page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Hendra[edit]

Sue Hendra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR: no secondary sources about the author, just a few book reviews. McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator / speedy keep, I'd evidently misread NAUTHOR and didn't think reviews were sufficient. Apologies for wasted time. --McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes Author #1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The reviews in RS support this claim. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't true there are no secondary sources about the author herself. I added the Baker and Taylor author biography to the article prior to the nomination for deletion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this currently seems notable and acceptable as I'm currently typing this. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I spent a bit of time yesterday researching Sue Hendra and she is genuinely a substantially publisher author. It's interesting that she'd never had a page before. It's probably because she write books for small children. That's probably an example of the bias that sometimes exisits in Wikipedia. Seaweed (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes the first criterion of WP:NAUTHOR in my book; multiple reviews in secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Hendra meets WP:AUTHOR as reflected in article, here are some more reviews; from Publishers Weekly - [14] for Oliver's Wood - " Hendra turns the tables on diurnal creatures--such as humans--by presenting darkness and light as basic matters of perspective. .. The oversize type, simple shapes and minimal plot best serve beginning readers, and Hendra's gentle animals demystify nightfall even as she puts a sweet spin on the concept of bedtime." and some from Kirkus, [15] for Dragon Jelly - "while Hendra and Linnet choose a festive, neon pastel palette set against a black background to make the festivities truly pop.", [16] for Oliver's Wood - "Hendra's simple text has flair: The adjectives conjure up funny images, while the story gives readers plenty to think about, without ever using the words nocturnal and diurnal.", [17] for Monsters Don't Eat Broccoli - "The vibrant gouache illustrations capture the silly playfulness of the text as goofy, rounded, toothy monsters delight in their odd meals in a variety of settings." and another review from SMH[18] for Supertato - "this book is delightfully silly, .. Kids will love it, and it may even encourage them to eat their veggies."Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASHISH SARAF[edit]

ASHISH SARAF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Diplomats aren't usually notable unless they have been covered in reliable sources. While he does have a credible claim to notability as the first Indian consul to the Bahamas, surprisingly there's little coverage about him. The only sources that are about him are about him receiving a gift of appreciation from Bahamas officials, and the rest are statements by him and not about him. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough coverage.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person who created this article has no past record for wiki edits. Mr. Saraf is also not looking notable. sameergoswami (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth articles on search engines to show they meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bikas Mishra.  Sandstein  20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DearCinema.com[edit]

DearCinema.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page creator seems to have a COI with this. She also created the page Bikas Mishra who is the founder of DearCinema.com and spammed the links everywhere unnoticed all these years 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. The Avengers 09:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The site dearcinema.com is down right now. The Avengers 09:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dearcinema.com was deleted two times, and the page created changed the caps.--The Avengers 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dearcinema.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Zapantis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gregory Zapantis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination, as I have no strong opinion on the article's existence. The article's creator has been trying to get it deleted (via speedy and prod), with the rationale "relatives requested this page with his info to be completely deleted from wikipedia"; but no speedy-deletion criterion is applicable, and the article can't be prodded, since there was a previous AfD in 2013 (with low turnout and a "no consensus" result). As a result of the creator's efforts, it's completely unreferenced at the moment; the last version with refs is here. Though a request by relatives is not a reason for deletion, I think a case can be made for nonnotability here. Deor (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything other than very brief references in the media (eg on restaurant reviews, recipes etc), so under the circumstances I think it is fair to say that the subject is not notable as per WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. Even without the subject's relatives' requests this could easily have ended up here again and been deleted as non-notable. Lacks the coverage required to demonstrate such notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are a couple of sources that mention him, but his mention is tangential to the point of the articles. Can't find many reliable non-primary sources in which he is the topic of the article, rather than simply mentioned.  DiscantX 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have just reverted the article to a previous version with references and external links. --Racklever (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Seales[edit]

Caleb Seales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability. External links do not mention subject except one credit embedded in a photo. Blackguard 07:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable videographer and college student. Completely lacking in significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, as required by the general notability guidelines. Article was apparently created by the subject himself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 17:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Charbatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Danapur Cantt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dewas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Powai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kanjikode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kottayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 1, Kankarbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 2, Nausena Baugh, Vizag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pattom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Puranattukara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rajgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ramavarmapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sundargarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kayamkulam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya 9th Mile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Adoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Aurangabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya BEML Nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Bamrauli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Bolarum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Ganeshkhind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya IIT Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Karaikudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Karwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Malappuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Maligaon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Malleswaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Mankhurd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Muzaffarpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, AFS, Lohegaon, Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalahalli, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 AFA, Dundigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ahmednagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhubaneswar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Hubli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 AFA, Dundigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Salt Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 3, Agra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 4, Gwalior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Halwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Nowrozabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Ottapalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Pangode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Rourkela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Tenga Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Tirumalagiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kendriya Vidyalaya INS Mandovi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These Indian secondary school articles part of a school system (Kendriya Vidyalaya) are not independently notable. All the articles contain no secondary sources at all and carry large amounts of unrefernced fluff with promotional tone, some of which I recently tried to clean up. There is also a lot of duplication of information with the main article, since all the KV schools share the same features – affiliation, syllabus, fee structure, admission policies, etc are all the same.

I don't think there's anything worth merging into the main article. The only things that can be merged are perhaps the year of establishment and locational settings into List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Everything else is unsourced or sourced with primary sources, and duplicative, or unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR stuff.

As an alternative to deletion, we may also consider redirecting the pages to List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or stubifying each article to 2-3 sentences, covering the non-duplicative details, that is, the year of establishment and locational settings. If/when one of the schools gets coverage in reliable source, its article could be expanded.

103.6.159.81 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a reason here to show why Indian secondary schools are not notable - I'd have thought they're at least as notable as British state schools, most/all of which have a wikipedia page. The poor state of the current pages is not a reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Mass deletion! without even catering to each article simple deletion of years of work by few authors, if any bias would be found it should be treated on case by case basis. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Mass deletion proposals like this are very unhelpful in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are over 1090 KV schools out which only the 60 listed above have articles -- even though they are no different from the 1000+ that don't have artilces. They were probably created by people with obvious COIs. If someone does a a real cleanup on an article, then there would be hardly anyhting left on it. We should either be mass-deleting these existing articles (my suggestion), or mass-creating articles for the remaining ~1030 KV schools. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not being a good article is not a good reason for deletion. Having an article when similar subjects don't is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ALLORNOTHING comes under arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. There is a consensus among editors that all high schools are notable and reliable source coverage can be found for them eventually. The fact that so few KV schools have articles can be attributed to a systemic bias against topics outside the Anglosphere, not a lack of importance. Finally, let's assume good faith in article creation. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all.We keep articles on all secondary schools. Some of these articles are fairly well developed, some stubs. The stubs are easy enough to expand--they make , reasonably enough, good projects for school classes. Wikipedia, as a matter of principle, is an encycopedia that covers the world , subject geographically only to the limitation that the articles be written in the English language, and that the choice of articles included will therefore inevitably reflect the interests of those who can write in English. I think it is possible that at the very beginning we may not have realised the very great number of topics possible in countries like India and Pakistan,whee some degree of English is known widely and where many people who know even a little are eager to write in English. Aspects of life where we are not the least surprised at receiving detailed treatment for areas in the UK or US (or Canada , Australia, NZ) seem over-coverage for us when applied to India (and we can expect this elsewhere) . To avoid having to debate the merits of each of the 10s of thousands of high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or secondary junior high schools except as redirects to the district. We were of course thinking of the US primarily, but the same principle applies elsewhere. It applies to even more force in areas where we have relatively fewer accessible reliable sources. Do we really want to debate each of these--we'd have to spread it out, for I think none of us can properly examine in detail more than 2 or 3 articles of this sort at a time--even for the US, the discussions when we had them were extremely time consuming (which is what led to the acceptance of the working compromise). DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: - one line of your above seems contradictory to the rest: you say "high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or secondary schools except as redirects to the district". In British English, a Secondary school is the same as a North American High school. I think the policy is to keep any pages written about High/Secondary schools. JMWt (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed my wording--just a typo,and thanks for the correction; I meant junior high schools, not secondary schools I of course did mean we include High/Secondary schools, and their equivalents in other counries however designated, including the UK institutions called 6th form colleges. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least one statement of yours is patently untrue. stubs are easy enough to expand. The trouble here is that there are no secondary sources available at all. How then would expansion be possible? At best, one can find pieces like this one that merely mention a school. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I checked one, it had a 12th grade class, making it a high school — kept by longstanding consensus at AfD. This is a ridiculously overbroad nomination that is more or less an end run around established precedent on schools articles. So Procedural Keep on them all. Carrite (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film[edit]

List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (2nd nomination)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
    I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
    List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshe Jinpa[edit]

Yeshe Jinpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is autobiographical, non-neutral, presents utterly unverifiable original research that reads as a bad advertisement for a non-notable self-styled guru, than as a relevant article. Aizen4515 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Autobiographical and self promotional. No indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last surviving Confederate veterans. All Merges get redirected after so just closing as Merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felix M. Witkoski[edit]

Felix M. Witkoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"There is no evidence to document his service, and his subsequent, arbitrary backdating of his birth fits the mold of deliberate fabrication." False claimant for "last surviving" (not oldest) Confederate veteran, apparently covered by one (1) two-page source. 2/3 of the article recounts things he claimed to have done but actually didn't (as demonstrated by the OR which comprises the other 1/3 of the article). EEng (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really convinced that his apparently false claim to be a civil war veteran is, in and of itself, a reason to delete. On this, I see a few references in books to his claims and discussion of whether they can be true. Given that he died such a long time ago, I would think someone would have to look offline for better sources to determine whether he is really notable. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans - the fact he claimed to be the last surviving veteran and was, for a time, feted as such is relevant to the topic, however I don't think he quite rises to the level for an individual article, given that his claim was false and it (seemingly) didn't become a celebrated fraud. However in the main article on the subject it's well worth mentioning and a redirect there is appropriate (and, if content is merged, required). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per The Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with redirect, of course) per The Bushranger's rationale above. Although I am tempted to advocate deleting the article entirely, I believe a brief discussion of the subject at the article would be illustrative of the cottage industry that grew up around such "last Confederate" frauds, as well as the odd tradition of surviving "Confederate widows" who sometimes married much older men (often for their pensions) and some of whom lived well into the 20th Century. (Yes, I am a Southern homey, y'all.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans. Seems notable enough for a mention at that page, but unless someone can provide better coverage, I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article here. Canadian Paul 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Last surviving Confederate veterans for reasons indicated above. I think that a merge in this case would benefit both articles: it creates a synergy and mutually provides context. I've added three two sources. But even as a Civil War impostor, and assuming he did live to be a Supercentenarian (old for a male) he is marginal as a stand alone article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of British supercentenarians. I'm giving little weight to the "keep" opinions by Jacona and Philip Cross because they do not argue in terms of sourcing, as per the applicable inclusion guideline WP:N / WP:BIO, but seem to argue that being very old makes a person inherently notable, which has no basis in our policies or guidelines. The last opinion supports either keep or redirect, and the one remaining "keep" isn't enough to save the article.  Sandstein  20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Masters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Catherine Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly unremarkable life puffed up with grand detail about which nursing home she lived in, # days before death during which she needed nursing care, father's change of career path, etc. Even if notable, recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB where sprightliness of complaint to Buckingham Palace might be noted. EEng (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The claim of notability is rather clear and remarkable, as evidenced by the ample reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject used to develop an article that provides appropriate significant coverage about her. The nomination demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an unacceptable argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for the fact that WP:NOPAGE is a compelling argument for redirection. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) What's utterly remarkable really mean, anyway? Isn't it kind of weird to combine such a dramatic intensifier with a humdrum word like "remarkable"? It's kind of like saying "intensly warm". [reply]
My comment demonstrates utterly remarkable disregard for WP:NOPAGE, a completely useless argument that is the exact equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just with fewer letters. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we've come to the nub of the matter, since NOPAGE is part of applicable notability guidelines. No surprise you're disregarding it, though. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual articles on the oldest supercentenarians are relatively common (see List of oldest living people). As Catherine Masters was the oldest person in Scotland at the time she died, her inclusion is entirely legitimate. Some accounts of an 'ordinary' life (like your's and mine) should be included in Wikipedia, and an unusually long lifespan is the means to legitimise the inclusion of such an individual's biography. The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all. In addition to the article already mentioned, the main ones are List of the verified oldest people, List of oldest living people by country and Oldest people, but this seems to the case for other articles linked from Template:Longevity. Philip Cross (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The current articles about supercentenarians do not go into any detail about any individual at all": That's why most of them are now being redirected to lists, per WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scotland is not an independant country, so toss that argument. Fun story about getting the same card 5 years in a row though. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Importance and notability are not at all the same thing. While these articles about really old people aren't necessarily important, they receive a lot of attention, and that's really what gng is all about. Jacona (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question here isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Keep, because I don't agree with this application of nopage.Jacona (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not here, where would WP:NOPAGE apply? This one seems like the archetypical case. What am I missing? David in DC (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. WP:NOPAGE is not at all equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps reading them both would help to understand why. Distinguishing between the two ought not be difficult. This is definitely a WP:NOPAGE situation. Nothing encyclopedic appears in any of the sources. The apology for five identical birthday cards from Prince William is cute, but hardly justifies a stand-alone bio. Deleting the article and then redirecting to an appropriate list serves the subject adequately and follows our general notability guideline (there ain't none here) and our reqirement of WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources. The only sources here fit into the exception codified by WP:ROUTINE and WP:PERMASTUB. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to an appropriate longevity list. We're seeing an awful lot of these oldest living people bio articles come up at Afd and I have to say I'm surprised we have so many. In this case, I agree WP:NOPAGE certainly applies. There is no lasting notability here. This otherwise unremarkable person lived for a long while. She got birthday greetings, etc. Other people after her will live very long lives in the UK, and congratulations to them all. But we don't need a lot of individual WP:PERMASTUBs on people such as this. Lists are the best way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable supercentenarian.--Inception2010 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "In 2009, [Masters] wrote to Buckingham Palace to complain that she had received a birthday card with the same design for five consecutive years." Cheeky old girl. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect Was the oldest living person in Scotland at the time of her death and has a well-sourced article. Until this whole "Non-notability" or "No Page"-stuff is resolved there should be put a stop onto all these AfD-nominations. 930310 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Meizhen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Luo Meizhen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe. Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, possibly mentioning there that she was stubborn and lived in a shed. EEng (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't discussion about merging be handled on the talk page, or by an RFC? This is after all "Articles for deletion". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested earlier this fall that this kind of thing be handled via merge discussions on the article talk page. But it was felt that, because of the decade-long history of puppetry and disruption associated with longevity, the more public process at AfD would be preferable. EEng (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this perfectly illustrates the problem with these articles. One specialized group (in China) says she was 127 but another (western) group says they don't agree - and declare this or that person is the real oldest. I was just saying there are likely older people in China but that country is not counted in the "world's oldest" and "asia's oldest" breathing contest. It's a big guessing game. Delete Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One group in China say she was 127, but no one else seems to agree, so that's a WP:FRINGE theory. Documentation in China is very poor, so it's very difficult to prove Chinese longevity claimants' ages. Nothing to do with China being "left out". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The longevity claim is disputed. There are no unambiguous sources to support any claim of notability. One based on longevity alone would not be enough, but it might at least support a merge or a redirect. Here, there's nothing notable to move to any longevity list. I don't oppose meerging it with longevity claims or longevity myths, but neither would I be troubled if this thing were simply deleted.
    I cannot imagine what a "keep" rationale for this turkey of an article would be, but I suppose I'll soon find out.     David in DC (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article rescued by RAN and DC. The turkey is transformed into a swan. DiDC volunteers for a WP:TROUT David in DC (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to relevant list per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Longevity claims. Coverage in reliable sources establishes notability per WP:GNG. If there's not much "worthwhile" information then a mini-biography could be created elsehwere. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are enough reliable sources giving information. The controversy need to be explained in detail. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Was featured many times in the media due to her claimed age. If she doesn't meet the GNG-requirements she should be merged to a relevant list, such as the one proposed by Ollie231213. 930310 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question here on Wikipedia is not the pursuit of truth; it's notability and verifiablity. Wikipedia has articles about grey aliens, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. The claim of notability here is clear, and the reliable and verifiable coverage about the individual covers the claim of extreme age to provide an appropriate encyclopedic article. Alansohn (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge amounts worth saying about aliens, bigfoot, and Nessie, so standalone articles are appropriate. Not so here. EEng (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen. It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe", though you acknowledge that there is no obstacle here, whether the claim is true or not. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's more than enough to say here about Luo Meizhen: Really? Because the entirety of what the article says about her is this:
She was one of the Yao people and lived in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR), in a small village in Bama county known for the longevity of many of its residents, including a 106-year-old woman and 113-year-old man (in 2011). She lived in a shed with her 63-year-old grandson and his son. She was described as a nice, but stubborn woman with a strong character.
  • It was the nomination (and a number of delete votes) that is based primarily on the argument that this is a "Longevity claimant that no one seems to believe": No, the nomination is about NOPAGE, as in "Recommend merge to appropriate Longevity Claims list, per WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB".
Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted. All you've done is repeat the same claims that have been rebutted already. Maybe you need to ask your favorite admin to shill for you here as well. Maybe its time you said farewell to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. I guess this means you won't be explaining how the three sentences above comprise "more than enough to say" about the subject. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the !wikilaw? What is the minimal number of words for an article, below which we delete? WP:NOPAGE (whether to create standalone pages) and WP:PERMASTUB (essay) do not mention the exact number. You keep referring to it as if it does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter for editorial judgment of course, but I think in general three short sentences doesn't qualify. EEng (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So four sentences make a sufficient article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "sufficiency" -- this isn't about meeting some threshold to be "good enough" for a standalone article. The question, again, is how to best present what there is to say about the subject. If there's so little to say that it can easily be said in a list entry, or in a minibio as discussed here [19]. The three short sentences in the article now probably fit. But there's no magic number of course -- sorry. EEng (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am seeing tons of coverage and age is a notable achieve though this does appear to be dubious. Valoem talk contrib 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't at issue so coverage has nothing to do with it. EEng (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, converting to nothing but a list entry diminishes the usability of the encyclopedia. Merging would result in clutter. A stand-alone page is definitely what we need for this and similar persons. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Albeit disputed, her claim of longevity is clearly notable, from the level of coverage both before and after her death. There is enough information from the sources to write a standalone Wikipedia biography about her. "Ironically, Luo may have just been too old, as China had not built a reliable birth certificate system until decades after her birth" (Medical Daily) sums up the sentiment quite well. Deryck C. 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurstville FC[edit]

Hurstville FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search to try and expand the page today for the club, but other than their own website there is little to no information on the club (other than a few mentions in local newspapers for results). The only other source I can think of for them could be Australian Croatian newspapers / sites. A few notable players have made their way through the club ... not sure that counts though. Floss (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, teams outside the top level of the Australian state leagues rarely get more than routine coverage, if that. Hack (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 12:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NCLUB, no indication of participation in competitions likely to aid fulfillment of WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The club could have notability which go beyond game listings due to its special composition/history, but sources for that are not given in the article. Agathoclea (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not currently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After further research, the consensus was clearly keep. Subsequent to the keep, will move the article to Carlo Bertinazzi. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 19:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bertinazzi[edit]

Bertinazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: thoroughly non-notable as actor. Confused joke of an article. Quis separabit? 03:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move and improve. The naming of the article doesn't help when looking for sources, and presumably defeated the nominator - modern sources tend to refer to the subject as Carlo Bertinazzi (or even by his full name of Carlo Antonio Bertinazzi), and his contemporaries often seem to have referred to him just as Carlin. The subject was apparently one of the major comic actors of the mid-18th century, regularly playing the part of Harlequin at the Comédie-Italienne for several decades from 1741. Specialist theatrical encyclopedias standardly seem to give him a short entry (for instance, this one), he gets a lengthy entry in Treccani, and there is a very substantial earlier account of him by Maurice Sand (available through GBooks here). Note that his supposed correspondence with Clement XIV, which tends to appear towards the top of searches, is an early 19th century spoof (though possibly drawing its inspiration from anecdotes told by Bertinazzi himself). PWilkinson (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move as above, the extensive entry in Treccani alone would be sufficient to justify an entry in WP. In addition of sources above, he was the subject of several biografies, such as Carlo Bertinazzi, dit Carlin by Pierre Nicolle and Simone Cusenier and more recently L'ultimo Arlecchino del re by Gianna Paola Tomasina. I see tons of reliable sources in Google Books, including several encyclopedias. The current title is inappropriate and somewhat misleading, anyway. Cavarrone 09:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if and only this can actually be improved as there are no current obvious signs of it and if not, simply delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister, it is obvious it "can actually be improved" if you only care to read the comments (and the sources) above yours. Stop disrupting the AfD process with such stupid comments. Cavarrone 07:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per the stuff that I found, and the more stuff + comments of others above. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist)[edit]

Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a re-titling (to get around salting) of an article called Giuseppe Prinzi, which was twice previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi (2nd nomination). It was then salted for reasons given in the 2nd nomination. I am not tagging this one for G4 because the current article is somewhat different from the two deleted ones. For those who can't see the previous articles, please evaluate this article on its own, to decide of the person meetsWP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I believe he does not - and if the result is delete, I would recommend salting this title as well. MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources do not provide notability, and the difference with the version I deleted is not significant.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to be confused with Giuseppe Prinzi (sculptor) (1825-1895). This earlier sculptor has an article in Italian Wikipedia, while the "... (ceramicist)" does not. PamD 09:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another attempt at an article, Prinzi_(artist), was deleted in August of 2015. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, LaMona. That was actually just a redirect to one of the earlier articles, but I have now salted that title as well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt (multiple re-creations) - per Ymblanter (can't see the deleted version as non-admin). But even without that, just looking on the current version: the included sources (blog, exhibition announcement, artist profiles) don't establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - removed the section about his "artistic language". Entirely unsourced, and full of puffery and jargon. GermanJoe (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I don't know why the article wasn't speedy'd. Appears to be created by a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Roller1540. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, because a month ago I speedy deleted Marianna Yarovskaya, which is also a self-written agiography and has been previously deleted via AfD. Because this time the creator moved some lines here and there, my decision was overturned on DRN, and the article is still there, nobody cares. This was an overly negative experience for me. I would rather stay healthy than get several months off my life for an attempt to delete garbage from Wikipedia. Let it go through AfD; the community time will be wasted but then there will be no way it can get to DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reason I didn't speedy it was because it had previously been to AfD, and it didn't qualify for G4 (in my opinion, YMMV). It has a lot of history; otherwise I would probably have prodded it. I think it is a little too close to making "claims of significance" for A7. And yes, it was created by an SPA, and edited by another SPA and a couple of single purpose IPs - but that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom and the above editors. And due to the activity of the article's creator, I would also agree with Salt. Onel5969 TT me 19:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thai greeting. Obvious target for redirect; WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wai (gesture)[edit]

Wai (gesture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable, all WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Polli[edit]

Gino Polli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person appears not to be in any way notable. He served in the Italian army in the First World War, as did a lot of people, and saw action in several battles, as did a lot of soldiers. He appears to have received some passing mentions in documents of the time, but there is no in-depth coverage in the article, nor can I find any: not in Treccani, 0 hits in WorldCat, 0 hits on Google books (unless he wrote an article on Futurist art), 0 hits on JSTOR, 0 hits on Muse, 0 hits in Oxford Bibliographies. This appears to be a concoction of family history and wishful thinking, possibly with an element of misinformation (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianco di Lierna for an example of a possible hoax by this editor). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • curiously always you? weird right?

Obviously you can see that the problem is not the article but that this user for personal reasons want attack me continuously and personally. Always and only he, unlike many others with whom I worked with pleasure and friendship in creating this articlewhich I think was right .always do with censorship.

Here you have all the deeply sources:

  • Ettore Crosignati, The Memorial of Gino Polli, publisher Crosignani, Via Olmetto, 14 (1923–1940), Cubi, GdMI, Milan, Italy, 1926
  • L'Artigliere, "Figure di Combattenti che scompaiono, Un Eroe del Vittorio Veneto" ("Figures of Fighters disappear, A Hero of Vittorio Veneto"), May 1926, Rome

--Alec Smithson (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lierna_Castle a simple example, this article was not initially part of a copyright violation from external sources but a simple translation of a wikipedia article, has been blocked by him. Just because I wrote. I asked if I could translate Wikipedia administrators, and I have confirmed that the translations can be made of other languages. Maybe I would have to add in the code that was translated, but it was only in part and changed in the syntax. Well then I changed everything and reduced the contents, was no longer a copy, but my personal wrote. And I tried to lift the blockade of the page. He did not allow it to do with imperative and threatening. And you see well the page is locked to anyone interested in making censorious, and PROCURED ALARM for violations of COPYRIGHTS. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. --Alec Smithson (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT and WP:NPA. - 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mid-ranking officer with no special achievements or notable decorations. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very detailed article, obviously done with a great deal of work, but there is little evidence of this particular person's involvement. Also, the level of detail greatly outstrips the scope of the sources. The list of battles does not belong in this article, even if there were proof that he participated. One of the main sources, the Crosignati, does not appear in the main Italian union catalog of libraries, so its existence cannot be confirmed. There is something weird about the dates "(1923-1940)" on a book published in 1926. I checked the Italian sources that are available but none gave the kind of detail I find here. Basically, the article fails verification. Great amounts of it are unsourced. In particular, sources would be needed for the military awards, but are not given. The article says that he received many medals, but the [Italian list of medalists] turns up zero for his name. I find this article puzzling, but can't find a policy that would allow us to keep it. LaMona (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is yet another in a group of recent articles, challenged but invariably defended (although sometimes deleted or re-directed), which inflate and synthesize isolated factoids about a non-notable Italian family, location or person and list bibliographies and footnotes which don't substantiate the significance, history or connections alleged in the articles, e.g. Museo Giannino Castiglioni, Bianco di Lierna, Principality of Sperlinga, Lierna Castle, Lordship of Nanteuil (re-directed to House of Natoli). Apparently no one has found the time or means yet to interrupt this pattern, which continues to distract editors from improving the encyclopedia. If it can't be stopped, it should at least not suck up time from more productive contributions to Wikipedia. Delete. Swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's never-ending, FactStraight. Take a look at Emilio Polli, or at Polli Corporation, yet more of the same. Presumably there comes a time when this pattern of editing is considered disruptive; I've spent many hours rewriting some of these pages (Giuseppe Amisani, Giambattista Pittoni, Lierna (chair), Lierna etc.), and have received a number of (mostly barely comprehensible) personal attacks as a result.
I'm very concerned about the medals attributed to Gino Polli. While the useful site linked by LaMona appears not to be comprehensive (according to our article, the Croce al Merito di Guerra was awarded more than a million times), EricSerge's edit summary "Polli died 42 years before the founding of the Order of Vittorio Veneto. the statute establishing the Order did not provide for posthumous awards" makes me wonder (with all allowance for good faith) if we are looking not at muddled wishful thinking and poor understanding of Wikipedia practices, but at intentional dishonesty. I note that the Croce di Guerra al Valor Militare was instituted in 1922, after the end of the First World War, and that it can be awarded only in time of war ("La croce di guerra al valor militare non si conferisce altro che in tempo di guerra"). Alec Smithson, in what war did Polli receive that medal, and what is your source for this claim? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC
Support for general sweep, the more time I spend, the worse it is... I am not finding coherence in any place if not I am suspecting that everything is fake: I opened this meta:Vandalism_reports#79.40.139.19_-_Alec_Smithson_-_cross_wiki_spam after today's cross-wiki spam--C.R. (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Following prolonged and tedious discussion at User talk:Alec Smithson#Hoaxing #2, Alec Smithson has finally removed the Croce di guerra al valor militare from the medals attributed to Polli, so that issue at least is now resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be due to the language barrier but this article doesn't really establish what the subject is claimed to be notable for (not to mention some tone issues). Regardless, there does seem to be only a very limited number of sources which mention the subject, and at that the main ones are from the 1920s, which seems indicative of a lack of "significant coverage" to me per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have only recently started watching this article develop. My sole edit is noted above. It was my hope that the recent activity in this article would develop it into an article that demonstrated clear notability with an appropriate number of reliable sources. However, that level of development has not come to pass. At this point it appears to be a genealogy/family history article more suited for a blog than an encyclopedia. I also find it telling that there is no corresponding article on the Italian Wikipedia as most of the sources for this subject are likely in Italian. It would appear that Polli did his duty to his country in time of war, but his contribution was not more notable or significant than the contributions of millions of others. EricSerge (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No bibliography about him, no special decorations or achievements. --Carlomartini86(Knock-Knock) 07:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand the author, he is creating history of his family, but will be better, if he create his own webpages about his family.--Yopie (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (G7). Closing discussion, article has been speedily deleted by Mark Arsten, under criteria G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Rigby[edit]

Lawrence Rigby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written article, but subject may pass the threshold so don't want to nominate for speedy deletion. MB298 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:A11. North America1000 01:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Justin Johnson Show (Home-Video Series)[edit]

The Justin Johnson Show (Home-Video Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable show. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A11; tagged as such. The article even admits that it is not an official show (and it doesn't help that it was created by JustiNBJohnsoN). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IPs discounted, obviously.  Sandstein  20:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Stevenson[edit]

Rhys Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet notability requirements. Reading through the lines of the article, he seems to have created a website on Weebly as part of a university course (one of the refs is to the University of Essex website which states that the course "has really helped him develop his blog writing skills and .. is giving him the skills to turn the blog into a fully-fledged business in the future") and the claims of notability don't stand up to much scrutiny - the references appear to be predominantly self-published or other blogs. There is a claim of a nomination in the National UK Blog Awards - but the site didn't win anything and the awards themselves don't appear to be notable. It all looks like a bit of self-promotion. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for it to remain given his support for the far right in Europe it will provide people with the relevant information on him to avoid being associated with him. Also his blunders are simply hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.238.53 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found a piece in the Brentwood Gazette, but that and a press release from his former uni was the only coverage I found. Most of the "sources" are his own writings. Fences&Windows 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

This page is not considered to be self promotion as this person has been vetted by numerous people to be a legit entity.

Plus Global Metal Apocalypse was started in 2009, before Rhys went to university. Therefore not part of his degree; with the exception of using his website as a platform for a module.

Keep because reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.39.179 (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google UK Blog Awards and you will find the actual site, also look at the Global Metal Apocalypse front page for badges from the awards . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.126.101 (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck RichardOSmith (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep page should not be deleted for any reason given credible notability.

"Keep" Rhys Stevenson is an established icon within the music journalism community and information is legitimate.

Keep Rhys has his fingers in many pies and is known internationally for his work in bringing foreign musical counterparts together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.155.24 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also an awesome dude I know myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.167.155 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rhys' drive and passion has helped a lot kg lesser known bands gain a following that they may not have had to begin with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.13 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Young blogger of little notability who likes to promote himself or get his friends to do it for him. To the anons who are posting opinions here, it really doesn't help your case you know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of debate with regards to above comment as conflicts with the 'unsupported statements' rule, plus is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowzgoth (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is illiteracy also be! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How inquisitive of you. Care to elaborate on the deliberate use of self-contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowzgoth (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm! Also with that of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but given you started 'commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive', begs the question if you know how to use wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowzgoth (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably need to read my user profile before making laughable comments like that. This AfD has been packed with comments like "Rhys has his fingers in many pies and is known internationally for his work in bringing foreign musical counterparts together", "Rhys Stevenson is an established icon within the music journalism community" and "Also an awesome dude I know myself". Do you really expect us to take such comments seriously and assume they're from neutral editors as opposed to him and/or his mates? Oh, and before you tell me I don't know how to use Wikipedia you might like to learn how to sign your posts! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, slightly bragging but it's fine I sympathize. You appear to be coming across as vague, unless you have solid evidence to say that said comments are from said people, then you ought to take a step back and reassess your contradictions to what is actually allowed on said afd debate.

79.78.126.101 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shameless Self Promotion, added himself into other articles including List of University of Essex people, Wickford and Bromfords School. Clearly an ego trip designed to impress others/himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.90.138 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - getting back to policy based conversation - doesn't come close to passing notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gravograph[edit]

Gravograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs except from company website. Only claim of significance is that it "has processed 60% of the world market share."  DiscantX 15:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion at best. A Sentient Sock (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched about this company but presence on web of this co. is limited. The co. is present either on its own website or on stores. So article should be delete until co. become notable. Apart from this the creator of this article has only one edit which is this article.sameergoswami (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan-e-Madina Mosque, Peterborough[edit]

Faizan-e-Madina Mosque, Peterborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no notability. the mosques holds only 1000 people and cost only a couple of mill to build. the only "notable" thing, "may" be the dome is "one of the largest" in UK. But seeing that Uk does not have that many large mosques, even that is non-notable. I am not sure if there is a separate notability criteria for mosques so I went with the building GNG on this, and as far as I can see, clearly deletable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the building, the cost of building and the number of people it can hold is no way to assess the notability of a religious building. If the UK has few large mosques, then it seems to follow that there is a good chance any of them are going to be notable - if there is more than a minimum of mentions in secondary sources. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to find a lot of secondary mentions of it (which is hardly surprising, given it is a major religious building). Obvious keep. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Random claims of being big and expensive doesn't help a building to even pass the WP:GNG, as far as I understand. The UK has many mosques, and I'm sure the parishioners of most houses of worship will claim theirs is big and expensive and awesome. The encyclopedia, however, doesn't function based off of that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Makeup Artists Expo[edit]

United Makeup Artists Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable event. Very poor article. Created by editor with a number of COI issues. Multiple issues with article, non encyclopaedic, non neutral tone. Rayman60 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find anything more than passing mentions in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. basic directory entry without any show of notability. WP is not the place for this. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus that the content appears to be original research given the lack of reliable sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of capital cities in the history of Vojvodina[edit]

List of capital cities in the history of Vojvodina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Awkward article; Vojvodina is not a country, but a province. See Category:Lists of capitals, which includes countries, but no country subdivisions (this is the only one). Zoupan 13:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strange article, maybe made in error. Should be deleted --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, by WP standards WP:OR. It takes a geographical area and lists cities within it that have been the capital of some state or political subdivision from Roman Times up until World War Two. No evidence that anyone else had ever put this information together. Borock (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This does not strike me as a useful list. Certainly fails WP:OR, particularly as some of them are capitals of other polities of which Vojvodina was then part. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Very interesting. I didnt know this and have not seen it anywhere else. Still I also say delete for thesame reassons as those above me already said.Stepojevac (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barter[edit]

Andy Barter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. PR page for non notable person, created and majorly contributed to by COI/SPA. Very little relevant info shows up in searches. Rayman60 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for ("andy barter") turned up lots of hits, but most of them were photo credits with little or no information about Barter himself. I wasn't able to find any in-depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources. I checked the items in the "References" section of the WP article under discussion, and didn't find anything better there. Appears to fail WP:GNG. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Barely skims GNG - there are two reasonably good sources: The Independent and the Guardian. However, the latter is essentially a show of his work with little analysis, so only the former provides content about him and his work. Perhaps too soon. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for photographers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Serbian nationalism. Consensus to not keep. Whether to merge something from the history to the target article is subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  08:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbdom[edit]

Serbdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was listed for discussion back in 2011, and hasn't been worked on since. There are no reliable references and inline citations in the article. There seems to be a confusion over what "Serbdom" really means — patriotism, nationalism, or ethno-religious identity. I can safely conclude that this is an ambiguous term. The article, which has no relevant content or history (copy from Serbian nationalism and articles on folk attire) should be deleted. In the future, if appropriate, it may be redirected to a better suited article. --Zoupan 13:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The previous nomination was actually a move request. Pardon me for the template name.--Zoupan 13:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad article, not worth saving. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is why an article confusing all definitions, without mentioning this fact, should be deleted. The term should be added to Wiktionary.--Zoupan 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serbdom at Wiktionary. All interlinks to "Serbdom" should be linked to the wiktionary entry instead.--Zoupan 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a proper name, and as such, it should go to Wictionary as per Zoupan. MorenaReka (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between Weak keep and Merge with Serbian nationalism article. If the article does get deleted some of its content ought to be merged into Serbian nationalism. However keep is warranted too as it is a term. Probably someone needs to do a little google books and scholar search for any new peer reviewed material that has been published on the matter to expand. Some articles do become idle however because that's all the material that is out there has been published or the editor writing does not have enough expertise to expand it. This page could also become like the Kosovar one giving a small amount of info on the term as it does exist. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
some of its content ought to be merged into Serbian nationalism, exactly what "content"? There is none. The page should obviously not be kept. "Serbness", which "Srpstvo" translates to, has no equivalent in Wikipedia.--Zoupan 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are three references to Serbdom in the Serbian nationalism article without having a sentence explaining it. By merge i mean that, whatever relevant info this article might have for its incorporation into that article elaborating on "Serbdom" so the reader at the very least knows what is meant by the term and its use in Serbian nationalism.Resnjari (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what wiktionary is for? Where the term is used, a wikt:Serbdom will be added (as said above). There is no relevant info, as already said.--Zoupan 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then add it. The term is used 3 times in the Serbian nationalism article (used in quotes). A reader may want to know what is meant by Serbdom. If that's taken care of then yeah, possible deletion would suffice unless someone else has a concern with it.Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Zoupan 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wiktionary (vague term/political phrase with no fixed meaning), along with the article Serbenda, which makes even less sense, since it is a pejorative term for a Serb nationalist and nothing more, like Crnogorčina in Montenegro or 'Rvatina in Croatia. Nothing worthy of an encyclopedic article. Sideshow Bob 12:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already present at wiktionary.--Zoupan 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Serbian nationalism article. Whatever is useful should go there as a "Srpstvo" section. If there is nothing useful, then delete.--Mondiad (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing useful.--Zoupan 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Ingebrigtsen[edit]

Jørgen Ingebrigtsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not establish notability. —Swpbtalk 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On occasion Ingebrigtsen has been mentioned in the local press in the Drammen area, after all Strømsgodset is a big deal in that area. However, while I found one article here that confirms his qualifications I cannot see that the coverage is significant. Nor are fitness coaches usually considered notable for other major clubs either. Mr. Ingebrigtsen's qualifications and merits are indeed admirable, but on balance I cannot deem it sufficiently notable for coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson Twins[edit]

Carlson Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies almost exclusively on a primary source that is now dead. It also links to several sources that do not meet Wiki standards of reliability such as IMDB. They modeled for some major brands, as seen in photos via a google search, but I could not find one news article written about the Twins. There does not appear to be enough information to substantiate a page, which was my reason for the deletion nomination. I welcome discussion on the subject.

I would have cleaned up the article, but without any true sources to support the claims, this article would be reduced to a single sentence. "The Carlson Twins were professional models." They are no longer active. Mechoise (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this discussion was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall talk 19:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The referencing needs improving, but they are notable. There is a mention in the NYT already linked to in the article. Out Magazine covered the twins in 2001 as a cover feature. They are discussed as a case study of straight men as gay icons in a book. One of them got coverage for charity work in 2010 from the WSJ. If you want to get really meta, there's even coverage of their Wikipedia bio. There will be more sources out there, try Google Books and dead trees in libraries. 2001, when they first became known, is the dark ages of the Internet. Fences&Windows 22:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Fences and Windows. Martinogk (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the reasoning above says it all. I know who these guys are because I was around before the Internet became a massive thing, though I was never really interested in them. But they were certainly pretty widely known at the time. Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Response Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rational Response Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No long-term notability. Article has obviously been created by group members for self-aggrandizement. SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the result of the first AFD was Speedy Delete, in spite of heavy use of sock-puppets in favor of keeping the article. --SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've debolded "speedy delete" in your comment above, as it might give the impression that you're trying to !vote on your own nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per first and second nominations. Do not know why we need to revisit this. Notability is not something temporary. Martinogk (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not as many citations as I remember it having, but it's still got enough coverage to pass the GNG. The Blasphemy Challenge was a pretty big deal, and it made headlines, as demonstrated in the article. Notability is not temporary, and the group does not have to maintain constant coverage. There are elements of WP:ONEEVENT involved in the Blasphemy Challenge coverage, but there's other coverage, too, even if it's not quite as strong. For example, their work debunking Uri Geller: [25] from USA Today, [26] from the San Francisco Chronicle, and [27] from Ars Technica. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seemingly well-sourced and informative therefore seemingly notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - it annoys me that every RS in the article is basically a report on other people responding to one inane publicity stunt. But, I have to concede, it worked. This is not the first time that Wikipedia has rewarded some person or organisation whose only claim to fame is making a big noise over nothing, and it won't be the last. The fact that I don't like it is immaterial. De Guerre (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed.  Sandstein  20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online brand protection[edit]

Online brand protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a best practices list. WP:NOTGUIDE RegistryKey(RegEdit) 17:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Even though I don't know a lot of Wikipedia's policies yet, the layout of the article did remind me of a best practices list, which is not encyclopedic. Besides, there are only three bare references, and one of them is a search engine! Ponyeo Gazabell (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  21:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Timothy Plan[edit]

The Timothy Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence whatever of notability. The article has existed for well over nine years, and as far as I can see the only thing there has ever been that could be regarded as an independent source has been one newspaper report which gave it a three-sentence mention. (Article tagged for sources for more than three and a half years, to no avail. PROD removed by the creator of the article, without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a page on the website of a campaigning organisation with the stated purpose of promoting organisations which it approves of, such as the Timothy Plan. The Timothy Plan is given a few sentences in a page covering other companies. It is neither a reliable source nor substantial coverage, and it is also questionable whether you are right in calling it "independent", in view of the avowed purpose of promotion of organisations. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to this an independent as their coverage of The Timothy Plan is obviously negative. They even have a comic mocking the idea of "Pro Life" investing. I am actually not in favor of keeping this article, but I thought this was worth mentioning since it is an independent source. Please WP:AGF. --SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam actually found enough coverage at first that a better article seemed likely but finished the searches, there's nothing exactly for obvious improvement so this is a WP:TNT deletion at best. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this has now been relisted twice, notifying users who have asked me to alert them where there has been low traffic and they can help for a better consensus: DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reason I would hesitate is the statement that two of their funds are traded on the NYSE, but ETF's are traded on NYSE Arca, which is a subsidiary exchange and does not imply notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Dallas, Kelsey (2014-08-25). "The faith-based investor: Making financial decisions based on religious beliefs". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      Mutual fund families like The Timothy Plan or Amana Mutual Funds Trust build investment options around religious convictions, empowering investors to put their money where their faith is.

      ...

      The Timothy Plan has attracted mainly Protestant and Catholic investors to its funds, which are designed around the company's conservative Christian beliefs. Although personal faith clearly influences the The Timothy Plan (its website includes the testimony of the company's founder and Ally's father, Arthur Ally), its faith-based funds and socially responsible investing are still built around the same financial fundamentals as other funds.

      ...

      The Timothy Plan promises to avoid companies that are contrary to Judeo-Christian principles, most notably those involved in abortion, pornography, alcohol, tobacco and gambling. As its moral screening statement explains, "Timothy Plan is committed to maintaining portfolios that are not actively contributing to the moral decline of our society."

    2. Maranjian, Selena (2007-05-30). "The World of Religious Mutual Funds". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      First up, the Timothy funds. There are, according to Morningstar, 23 of them, from the Timothy Plan company.

      ...

      I didn't examine all 23 funds, but I did focus on two. Its Timothy Plan Large/Mid-Cap Growth fund, invested in the likes of Tiffany (NYSE: TIF) , Legg Mason (NYSE: LM) , and Nokia (NYSE: NOK), has underperformed the S&P 500 in every year since its inception in 2000. The fund is relatively focused, though, with fewer than 60 holdings. That can be effective when the holdings perform well. The expense ratio, at 1.53%, though, is on the steep side.

      ...

      On the other hand, the Timothy Plan Large/Mid-Cap Value fund sported better results, such as a five-year average annual return of almost 13% that topped the S&P 500. Its top holdings recently included ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and First Data (NYSE: FDC) . It's interesting that First Data, which is very involved in the credit card industry, wasn't shunned. One could argue that credit card debt is harming American families as much as many other frowned-upon activities.

    3. Smith, Warren Cole (2013-05-31). "Investing your values". World. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      One company that refuses to own Starbucks is the granddaddy of evangelical investment funds, The Timothy Plan, which has about $700 million under management. (Catholics have the Ave Maria Fund, which has about $1 billion.) The Timothy Plan founder Art Ally has long been a thorn in the side of Guidestone and other investment groups that refuse to tightly screen their investments.

    4. Smith, Kevin (2013-09-27). "Faith-based investing combines religious values with returns". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      Arthur Ally, founder and president of the Timothy Plan, a family of funds that promotes itself as “America’s first pro-life, pro-family, biblically-based mutual fund group,” said faith-based investing is clearly not for everyone.

      “We are here for a niche,” he said. “The first half of our life was a struggle because people were not accustomed to matching their values with the way they invest their money. But now we have nearly $700 million in assets and about 30,000 shareholders. We don’t manage a gazillion dollars ... but we’re growing.”

      Ally, a former Shearson Lehman Brothers vice president, established the Timothy Plan in 1994 to address an investment need for the retirement plans of pastors of independent churches. But that mission has greatly expanded and today the plan includes 12 funds.

    5. Bailey, Sarah Pulliam (2013-08-28). "Newest 'Values Voters' adversary to America: The Emergent Church". Houston Chronicle. Religion News Service. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      he Timothy Plan has been featured in Christianity Today and World magazine, which called it the "granddaddy of evangelical investment funds."

      The mutual fund company, which has a portfolio of about $700 million, avoids investing in companies that it deems contrary to Scripture. For instance, it declines to invest in Starbucks because of the company's stance on gay rights.

    6. Kathman, David (2012-11-05). "Getting Religion With Faith-Based Mutual Funds". Morningstar, Inc. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      Finally, the Timothy Plan funds are run according to principles of conservative evangelical Christianity, with many of these justified by specific Bible verses. The largest of the family's 11 funds, Timothy Plan Large/Mid-Cap Value TLVAX, has about $100 million in assets; the newest, Timothy Israel Common Values TPAIX, was launched in October 2011 to support Israel, a cause near and dear to many conservative Christians. The Timothy Plan was founded by Arthur Ally because he considered mainstream SRI funds to be based on "New Age" principles not compatible with an evangelical Christian worldview. (You can read more about it here.) According to the Timothy Plan website, the funds shun companies that are "actively contributing to the moral decline of our society," including those involved with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, and abortion, as well as those perceived as supporting anti-family entertainment or alternative lifestyles. The firm's "Hall of Shame" lists many of the prominent companies that Timothy Plan funds won't invest in.

    7. "Fund Targets Catholics as Investors". Los Angeles Times. Bloomberg News. 1996-12-05. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      The Timothy Plan, a mutual fund for evangelical Christians, was opened in April 1994. The $11-million fund won't invest in companies that make money from what its founders call sinning.

    8. Bergen, Kathy (2001-06-15). "Seek and ye shall find a fund". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      The Timothy Plan funds, which boosted its roster of funds geared for Evangelical Christians from four to eight last fall, screens out companies involved in production of alcohol, tobacco or casino gambling, the usual gamut for religion-based funds. But the Orlando-based company also screens out companies involved in abortion and pornography, as well as firms that offer benefits to unmarried partners of employees.

    9. Veverka, Amber (1999-07-01). Chicago Tribune. Knight Ridder http://www.webcitation.org/6dUgNGgmq. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

      The article notes:

      But the Timothy Plan Fund, a conservative Christian fund, won't invest in Johnson & Johnson, which makes contraceptives and donates to Planned Parenthood, and it does invest in Kellstrom, an aerospace and defense equipment company.

      The Timothy Plan also closely eyes a company's employee benefits policy and corporate giving policy. Companies that provide same-sex partner benefits, such as Disney, Reuters and Knight Ridder, are out. Those that donate to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services, are out. Fruit of the Loom is off the list because it advertises in Penthouse. American Home Products, which is one of Amana Funds' biggest holdings, gets screened out at Timothy because it manufactures pills that can be used as emergency contraceptives.

    10. Edwards, Brian; Lambert, Jeff (1999-04-01). "Riches Of Values: Investors Rewarded For Their Faith In Religious-oriented Stocks, Funds". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      The Timothy Plan, which is affiliated with the Florida brokerage firm Raymond James & Associates, excludes stocks of companies involved in these areas, as well as other companies whose corporate practices "could be found offensive to basic Judeo-Christian value," according to the fund's prospectus.

      While the Timothy Plan's moral performance may be laudable, its financial performance has been less than heavenly. Shares of the fund lost 10.5 percent of their value in 1998, while the S&P 500 Index soared 28.6 percent. Over three years, the Timothy Plan has averaged a mere 2 percent return, according to Morningstar Inc.

    11. Foster, Malcolm (1999-09-06). "Money: Religious Mutual Funds Flourish". Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 2015-12-03. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      The $28 million Timothy Plan, which in 1994 started as a fund that invests in smaller companies, launched three new funds in July.

      ...

      The Timothy Plan screens out about 400 firms from roughly 8,000 publicly traded U.S. companies, or about 5 percent of the field. Among enterprises the fund avoids is Walt Disney Company, which many evangelicals believe has promoted an anti family agenda through its movie subsidiaries and its policies toward homosexual partners of employees (CT, Oct. 6, 1997, p. 84).

    12. Fraser, Bruce W. (2009-06-02). "Religion-Based Funds On The Rise". Financial Advisor. Retrieved 2015-12-03.

      The article notes:

      The Timothy Plan Funds, a biblically-based family of nine funds in Orlando, Fla., with $440 million in assets, avoids companies that deal with abortion, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and gaming, along with firms supporting non-married lifestyles. Art Ally, president, teaches biblical stewardship to financial advisors and has created a nine-hour seminar on the subject.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Timothy Plan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Shouldn't the creator of the article be notified?
Also, if this article is written in a NPOV, I'd believe it would be highly helpful to the general public seeing as how responsible investing is becoming much more visible. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 08:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bin Hamad AlHitmi Indoor Hall[edit]

Mohammed Bin Hamad AlHitmi Indoor Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GEOFEAT: does not appear to have "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance," or "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Some of these sources do not even mention the Hall (at least not by the names given in the article); none talk specifically to what makes the hall itself notable, even though they may mention that the hall exists and that things have happened there. ubiquity (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the sources, which were added by myself, do mention the hall. The name is very inconsistent though. Nonetheless it is quite obvious that all sources are referring to the same hall, as Al Arabi only has one indoor hall. As for establishing notability, surely hosting table tennis and fencing events at the 2006 Asian Games is notable? What about its capacity as a home venue in four professional sports leagues? Elspamo4 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article more than meets the notability criteria, seeing as it has been used to host international sports competitions (e.g. table tennis at 2006 Asian Games (it was referred to as Al-Arabi Indoor Hall)) as well as domestic sports competitions. It is also the primary table tennis venue in Qatar. Unfortunately the inconsistencies in its naming presents issues when making a precursory glance for sources, although I managed to find and add seven sources to the article. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ferris[edit]

Jeffrey Ferris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems odd to say that an article about a person who lived in the 17th century isn't notable, but from what I can tell of this article, there was nothing notable about Ferris. This article is a mess of WP:OR and non-encyclopedic tone. Citations provided do not appear to be reliable, are clearly passing mentions, and anyways aren't clear if they're the same person. It sounds like this article was written as part of a family tree project. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a family member made a page about an ancestor. I can't find anything notable about the individual. The references just seem to establish the individual's existence, not why they are notable. Jab843 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Do we normally allow articles on the founders of settlements? In this case he seems to be one of several founders, from which I assume he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the sources presented wouldn't be considered to pass a 20th century subject, then there's nothing about him being born in the 17th century that matters. Most of the sources fail IRS, and none provide "significant coverage" for the subject. Ravenswing 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kanojia[edit]

Prashant Kanojia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:JOURNALIST; all references cited are articles written by him on his blog and news website. Can't find any mention of him online in English or Hindi, apart from on his own websites. This article was speedied twice already by other editors over the last two days, after creation by WP:SPA User:Kanojiaakhbaar. Today it was re-created a third time by WP:SPA User:Jackpd7, who has so far not replied when I asked at the article talk page whether they are two accounts operated by the same person, so it's probably another autobiography. My speedy nomination today was disputed without explanation by a third editor. Norvoid (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are insufficient references to convince me that the gentleman is notable. I'm amenable to changing my mind if excellence of referencing is added to the article or if it can be shown to me that the article is capable of being referenced with references that meet our criteria for a living person. Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's apparently no solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 15:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwili[edit]

Kiwili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the references are promotional or trivial notices; there is no underlying notability � DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Kiwili page because it is about a sofware that is currently used by more than 50 000 users. It is notable and well described by newspapers and valid sources. There are many articles on wikipeida (french version) So Kiwili page is notable and should not be deleted. --User:nadiraboura (User talk:nadiraboura) 05:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page because it is the English version of a very well-known software around the French-speaking world. I'm using this service in Canada for more than 3 years now it should have a Wikipedia article. So article is notable for me. --Tom (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FemLink-Art[edit]

FemLink-Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Cmjudge (creator) who expanded it a bit more and left some arguments on talk (Talk:FemLink-Art). Sadly, the refs are still far from sufficient to show this organization has received in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, and the argument boils down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT. This is not sufficient to warrant being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references actually look pretty good, but I'd really like to have links to them so that I wouldn't have to go and look each one up in JSTOR or Muse or wherever they came from. The article needs a lot of work, though. :/ Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a very notable group of artists, who have done multiple exhibitions in multiple countries, and for which there are multiple references. There is no requirement that references can be checked online, and in fact, information that comes from non-online sources are in some ways more valuable for Wikipedia, since it makes it more widely available. What would be nice is to know what piece of information comes from which of the listed references. Martinogk (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:ORG. The "list" of purported references speak toward some of the artists but not about the organization itself in any significant manner. There are some non-English news sources available, but per WP:INHERIT any notability toward artists or venues (most WITHOUT articles) is not that of this organization. If its author Cmjudge (likely the organizations's founder C. M. Judge) wishes to have it back for work to bring in under WP:MOS I would say it can be worked on... but away from article space and with the understanding of WP:COI and WP:NAY. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there's simply nothing convincing information and sources-wise. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the opinions by the IP and Chs89 as SPAs.  Sandstein  21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lange[edit]

Matt Lange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promo with borderline N (WP:GNG / WP:MUSICIAN) - WP:BLP with unreliable sources. One of many promo article from WP:SPA sockfarm around Anjunadeep. Widefox; talk 08:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP page as all sources are credible and statements are sourced properly. Should delete any association with Anjunadeep if that is a source of concern or remove unreliable sources and statements rather than delete the page. Meets requirements for WP: Music. 24.43.8.170 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's two youtube refs - one is dead, the other fails verification. Those facts undermine "all sources" claim - can you reason what sources are WP:RS and support this BLP?! Your edit [29] indicates you believe there is an association with Anjunadeep, but that's at odds with your statement above. Do you have any link (see WP:COI) with the subject or the other accounts that have (some are WP:SPA and/or limited to a few CA artists). Stating it meets WP:MUSIC without reasoning why isn't persuasive. Widefox; talk 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both YouTube refs were edited - both updated to show proper verification. Billboard, Mixmag, and Vibe Magazine are all WP:RS. It meets WP:MUSIC criteria #1, he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. Chs89 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and to ask the obvious question - Chs89 you're an SPA with 11 edits under your belt? Have you edited with another account, and is that your (or someone you know's) IP above, and do you have a COI? Widefox; talk 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mixmag is a dead ref, Vibe Magazine isn't very deep, slightly trivial/promo one of 30 people so borderline MUSIC #1 "non-trivial". I gave up after those two. Looks WP:TOOSOON if the rest is similar?! The sourcing is weak, WP is WP:NOTPROMO, and you haven't replied about being asked if you have a COI [30]. Widefox; talk 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mjsbigblog ref doesn't mention him. (really gave up this time). Widefox; talk 01:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have a COI, I want to contribute and this is an article I want to clean up. mjsbigblog ref does't reference Matt but it says Blake Lewis' song was in the commercial, and if you refer to the discography it clearly states Matt is a producer on it. Through deduction it's obvious that Matt produced the track on the commercial. Will restate that Billboard, Mixmag (new link), Thump the electronic music division of Vice magazine, are all reliable sources. Chs89 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chs89 Do you have a connection with User:Nemochuggles, User:24.43.8.170 (obvious COI), User:Machinevx (which edits The M Machine) ?
mjsbigblog doesn't help with notability, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Blake Lewis.Widefox; talk 18:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft and userfy at best as the current article with both information and sources is not convincingly enough for general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page as sources have been cleaned up and are credible. Chs89 (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer The IP !vote appears to be an undisclosed COI, and it looks like the account Chs89 although has denied a COI, instead of replying about a connection with the other SPAs/near SPAs proceeded to !vote, and appears associated, so if true, inappropriate as multiple sock/meat !votes. Suggest striking both as undisclosed COI / WP:NOTHERE, and suggest follow-up at WP:COIN and WP:SPI. Widefox; talk 10:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cactus Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Cactus Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another unsourced, not notable Bowl broadcaster article. Prod removed without explanation or improvement. Fram (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like Fram said. The Cactus Bowl may be notable, but a list of individuals who have worked on broadcasts of these games is not independently notable. The article is unsourced, and I am unable to find multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage on the topic of Cactus Bowl broadcasters. Bear in mind, ESPN.com is not an independent source for lists of its own broadcast teams. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cbl62's rationale above: non-notable list of broadcasters for college football bowl game. Cbl covers all of the major points relevant to this AfD; no need for me to plow the same ground. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bang Tango. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Fortier[edit]

Drew Fortier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promoting autobiography of maker of non-notable film, references do not meet our RS criteria. At best, redirect to the band Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems best perhaps as he is obviously not independently notable yet but at best also this could be deleted (if needed) but definitely redirect either way as a likely search term. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to Bang Tango. I usually like redirecting as a solution and in this case, I do. This is all the notability there is... Fylbecatulous talk 13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gridiron Australia. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron West[edit]

Gridiron West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  06:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and any other measure I can find. No independent sources. Would change my position of they are found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Thank you for posting that explanation. Have you taken a look at the sources for this article? Any suggestions how we should wrap our heads around the notability analysis for this? All of the articles for the member teams of Gridiron West have already been redirected to this article, so a number of related team articles have already been deleted. I keep starting to research this, and then getting interrupted . . . I suspect the best potential newspaper references for this subject may only be available through Aussie newspaper archives . . . do we have any Australian sports editors with an interest in researching this? Jenks24, perhaps? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how it works in other countries, but Australia generally has state-level governing bodies for sports that are then overseen by a national governing body. Using examples from my state, Baseball Victoria, Cricket Victoria, Hockey Victoria, AFL Victoria, etc. I'd say these are usually notable but Wikipedia's coverage of them is often poor – the national governing body will draw most of the attention and, let's face it, sports fans are more interested in writing about their teams and leagues. On the question of whether this particular article is notable, I'm not sure. Looking at Newsbank, the coverage appears to be in local sources (e.g. Joondalup-Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times, Canning Times, Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette, Weekend Courier) rather than statewide newspapers. I think if someone went to the effort, a case could be made for passing the GNG but in the interim I wouldn't be opposed to just redirecting to Gridiron Australia. I also wouldn't necessarily use this as a precedent for all state gridiron bodies in Australia. I think a case could easily be made that Gridiron Victoria, for example, passes GNG – it has a fair bit of coverage in the Herald Sun. Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gridiron Australia (note "redirect" entails that article history be preserved) - I'm going to follow Jenks24's recommendation immediately above. This is a Western Australian state-level governing body for what is a relatively minor, but growing sport in Australia. Current coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources is marginal at best, but this subject may very well have significant expansion potential in the not-distant future, so an outright "delete" may not be the best outcome here. I also note that all of the articles for the member teams have already been redirected to this article. @Tavix, SwisterTwister, Paulmcdonald, and Hack: Pinging previous !voters to reconsider their !votes and rationales in light of Jenks24's comments. I think a redirect may be the best outcome for now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection I have no objection to redirect. It makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gridiron Australia, seconding Dirtlawyer and our conversation above. Since we're already here, it might be a worthwhile task to figure out which other state-level governing bodies should also be redirected there. I assumed it would be an all or none situation, but perhaps a few of them would pass GNG as Jenks24 mentioned. If the result is "redirect", I'm also considering an RFD for the team redirects since we'd be pushing them up a level, but feedback regarding that issue would be nice as well (my apologies if this is outside the purview of this AFD, it seems convenient raising them here). -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Patent Attorneys[edit]

Hong Kong Institute of Patent Attorneys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG, except official websites, most other websites only mentioned the organization without introductions and explanations of activities of the organization. Billytanghh (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current version is so unacceptable, it may even be acceptable G11 speedy material. Delete for now unless better coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the article attached many references, all references cannot fulfill WP:GNG and WP:RS. This private organization is a course provider, thus, that is a private school. If a company's article cannot achieve sufficient WP:GNG sources, this article is similar as an advisement for promotion. --Thomas.Lu (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Jaidi[edit]

Aziz Jaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the palace chief of security and bodyguard of Mohammed VI isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep chief security of the palace in Morocco is a very senior position within the security apparatus. Additionally meets GNG as there are ample sources in the Moroccan press (e.g.). One magazine (quoted in the article) even did a whole issue on him. --Tachfin (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Perry (author). (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turntable Timmy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Turntable Timmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, search brings up nothing reliable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm bringing up some stuff via my college's database. There was a Remix mention, but I'm not sure if that's an article or an advert. I also brought up evidence of an article in Newsday, but I can't actually see the article since it isn't available for me. The article was "He Plies His Art by The Book Now" by Corey Takahashi and was in the 3/02/2003 issue of Newsday. Offhand I'd recommend redirecting this to the author's page, if I can't find anything else out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author. The author's article has some issues with notability itself, but given that this isn't the topic of discussion there's no reason why this can't redirect. All I have at this point are four sources. The first, Boston Herald, is fairly brief and while there's a slight bit of a review this is more a list and not a review. The AWN link does announce the cartoon, but I can't find anything about it past then, meaning that it looks like this animated series never got off the ground. So no notability from that angle. The Remix source is dodgy for the above reason and the Newsday source would probably be usable except that I can't access it - if anyone can access and verify it, we could probably use it. However that really wouldn't be enough here to assert notability given how weak the others are, so I'd say redirecting is the best option here unless someone can bring up other sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Educational Services Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aakash Educational Services Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising. References consist of various mentions and press releases advertising the program. Borderline notability at best, and borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good for deletion reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now perhaps as News and Newspapers Archive found some links but maybe nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup but not grounds for deletion of a notable organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Aakash is quite popular here in India and has received lots of news coverage, that can be used as references. I am in the process of cleaning up the article at Talk:Aakash Educational Services Limited/sandbox (since the article itself is semi-protected). 103.6.159.65 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the update in the sandbox above, I would say that one is closer to removing most of the advertising nature of the article. It is one of the top educational coaching services in India, so the notability is there. I was going to replace the material from the sandbox with what is currently in the article, but I would rather wait for the result of this AfD first. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; from the developments above I feel comfortable !voting keep. We can always bring it back here. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 17:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia de Waal[edit]

Anastasia de Waal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent to satisfy WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She is a frequent talking head and panel speaker, and has written or edited a number of reports and books so is the kind of person I'd expect to have a bio, but I'm not finding the significant independent coverage needed to write a bio. Fences&Windows 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 12:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joni J. Young[edit]

Joni J. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not clearly established. Mr RD 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Highly cited in Google Scholar [31] and also quoted or mentioned in numerous books on accounting [32].--CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also multiple awards, independently cited, plus journal editorship/editorial positions, indicating leadership in the academic field(s).

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is going to hinge on some interpretations of WP:ACADEMIC. The person does not occupy a named chair, nor has she risen to the top rank of her field (whatever that would be). She has moderately high cited publications, which is good. I can't say that I consider the awards to be of great importance, and I don't know if the journals she has edited are prestigious. The negative is that there are no true 3rd party sources. I'm going with weak delete but could change that if someone with more knowledge of the field can provide more information. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 23:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dua-e Ahad[edit]

Dua-e Ahad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable prayer from Shia Islam. Akin to creating an article on "God Bless" as a christian prayer. Perhaps a merger in some other Shia related article, but in any case it cannot warrant a stand alone article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The supplication of allegiance to Muhammad al-Mahdi or Dua-e Ahad is notable topic and notable prayer for Shia Muslims. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent and reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before nominating the article for deletion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable (NEXIST). If your suggestion is to merge of the article, is not need to nominate the article for delete. You can add merge tag to article and say your reason in the talk page. Please search more and ask expert user in this field as (Sa.vakilian). Saff V. (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ​[reply]
First of all you should not ping users to a debate only based upon the fact that they share your POV. It is WP:CANVASS. You yourself admit that at present the article has ZERO reliable sources, but you claim that such sources do exist. Well! be kind enough to link them so I can add them to the article, because you must know where they exist as you are so vehement in your claim about them. Otherwise the claim of it being non notable remains valid I think Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable prayer for Shias; admins should note OP is nominating many articles from same editor —МандичкаYO 😜 10:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can "provide sources" which say that this is "notable"? With such vehement verbal support from you, it must have been mentioned in depth by some reliable sources. Also, is the creator a demigod to you or something that his articles should not be nominated for deletion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Fatima tablet[edit]

Hadith of Fatima tablet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable tradition narrated in the hadith. There are more than 7 HUNDRED THOUSAND traditions which have been narrated, twice that many if you include the Shi'te and Sunni traditions together. This is one of those 1.4 million narrations which does not stand out. No Reliable sources discuss it as being notable and it has never been presented as a unique tradition. Perhaps a simple mention in the main article worth a couple of lines, but a stand alone article? no please. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Succession to Muhammad#Hadith, after moving the quote/hadith itself to WikiSource per WP:QUOTEFARM. Of the sources mentioned in the article, the first one only discusses the Tablet in general with a minor ref to the hadith as a source. The second and third are merely background for someone who supposedly copied the tablet. In the fourth source, the hadith is used to comment on Quran 9:36. Finally there is the fifth source, which is written in Persian, i.e. I have no idea. None of the sources that I can read, actually discuss the hadith itself. The opposite goes for the Tablet itself and especially Muhammad's successors, which are supposedly the subject of the tablet. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Hadith is notable base on sources. There is specific article in special journal (Hadith sience) about this Hadith ( Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language). In this book (page 237) explain Fatima tablet. Also, in pages of 84 and 85 of this book narrated the Hadith by Jabir ibn Abdullah. Furthermore, there are several reliable source in the article. The important point is notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST). Also, According to WP:GNG we can not merge the article because If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
specific article is NOT a reliable source as it is a non notable magazine with a fringe readership. this book (page 237) which you say "Explains the tablet" gives it only 3 lines, and does not mention the "hadith of the tablet" at all. [33] also gives it 4-5 lines and is in itself a questionable source. With this kind of frivolous coverage this should be a SNOW for delete. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said your personal idea about these sources. Your idea is not important and Wikipedia criteria about sources is important. Please say your reasons base on Wikipedia rules. Why this source is questionable? Why the specific article is NOT a reliable source? Why it is not notable magazine? Why this magazine have fringe readership? Please answer clearly to these questions.Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for asking. Let me explain, it may clean up the air a bit. You see this source is highly unreliable because the publishing house which published the book is not considered reliable. After considering giving you arguments explaining why they are unreliable I will just link you to their privacy policy. I laughed at it for like five minutes because they do not have a privacy policy lol. They just copypasted the template text. Take a look here Privacy Policy , you can see that they have just copypasted "This is where you would enter your content in the content table. You can edit this text in your administration. This is where you would enter your content in the content table. You can edit this text in your administration." again and again. seems Unreliable now, doesn't it. Secondly, the magazine is no notable because not many people read it, why you ask? well there can be many reasons, but most off all the main reason is that they don't like what the magazine prints, therefore it is not read by many people. so there you have it, all explained. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You consider the sources according to your idea not Wikipedia criteria. My previous questions still remain.Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case your question shall remain long after this article has been deleted. I have explained everything in Simple English, what is the difficult part? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my comment above? you seem to be "infatuated" with this editor Saff V all of a sudden and have started to defend him on all of his articles that have been nominated for deletion. Perhaps you can show "how exactly" these sources are Reliable and "where" in them the subject is discussed "in detail". I checked the journal and found that they only give 3-4 lines to this subject and rest is just filler about other stuff. Did you find any in depth coverage? Just because you "like" an editor is not the reason to defend his work lol. Try to give some reasons for opposing deletion and back up your reasons with solid arguments instead of saying "as per". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FreeatlastChitchat I think that you are blind, there is one article about explanation of the Hadith but you said 3-4 lines. Please open your eye and see better. Saff V. (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually referring to that one article which explains it away in 3-4 lines and the rest of the article is just filler text. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue is notable, however the article should be improved with more reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 19:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeer Du'a[edit]

Mujeer Du'a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable prayer. Millions of prayers are present in the narrations and this is just one of them, just like "GOD BLESS". It can be given a short space in some other article , but a stand alone article is not warranted, it fails notability by a huge margin. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as hundreds of millions saying "God bless". That doesn't get "Gog bless" a stand alone article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Mujeer Du'a is notable prayer for Shia Muslims in Ramadan. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent and reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before nominating the article for deletion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable (NEXIST). Saff V. (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so first of all you admit that in its present state the article does not cite any RS. Ty for that, good thing we got that cleared up. Secondly, as I have stated above, this is a non notable prayer, if you have any Reliable sources which discuss it in detail then present those sources. We all know there are no reliable sources mentioned in the article but they must be out there somewhere according to you, so why not present them. Just throwing around words without any sources to back them up is meaningless in a debate. you claim that Reliable sources discuss this in detail, fine, present them. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the article sources are not reliable? I think that you have not sufficient information for evaluating sources of article.Saff V. (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it has not been established that the topic is notable. That should be the major concern. You see the basic problem is that this is just a simple prayer like saying "God bless". and therefore it does not deserve an article all by itself. As far as sourcing is considered, why don't you pop over to WP:RS and have a look see. Then compare that to the sources given in this article, I am sure you will come to agree that the sources are not reliable and very shoddy. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Prayer books (and website prayer books) are not independent of the subject. This article could have been proposed for speedy deletion under WP:A7. @Saff V.: can you find significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I am not even sure what significant coverage would look like. I can see that the prayer might be mentioned in passing in sources - but that does not justify inclusion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of blessings and prayers.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am rather worried about potential WP:BIAS here - we have articles on some prayers used by major Christian denominations and nobody seems to be bringing, say, Confiteor here, even though that article is largely sourced from Christian prayer books. To be honest, I think that the sourcing of Confiteor looks quite a bit better than the sourcing of this article - but I am not completely sure that I would take the same view if I had as little knowledge of Catholic rituals as I do of Shia ones. PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And which article about a non notable prayer exists for "other" religions. You should be aware that simply saying "other articles " exist is not considered an argument here on AFD debates. Perhaps you can try to show how this prayer is "notable". Becasue without notability it is destined to be deleted. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiral Mei[edit]

Hiral Mei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough reliable sources to show notability Galaxy Kid (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article did not include any details that are not verifiable or promotional in nature. The sources quoted are not taken from social networking sites or similar nature websites. The article is already mentioned to be a stub. The subject , who is a film actress, is already credited (the roles were notable) for her work and that can be verified if we got through cast list of those movies in the internet. Abyjohn1991 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four references used are WP:RS; pinkvilla.com, bollywoodirect.com, bfwa.in, and cinemagigs.com. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to indicate that she satisfiess Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The full text of one of the cited sources is "Heeral Mei is an Indian actress who will portray the role of Princess Malavika in the upcoming thriller Main Aur Charles." Another one merely includes her name in a list of credits. Another one has a two sentence mention of her, references Wikipedia, and refers to her as "he". Another one has a one sentence mention of her in a page about another actor. The "keep" arguments above, from the editor who created the article, are all Strawman arguments, as nobody said that the article contained details that were "not verifiable or promotional", that the sources were "taken from social networking sites or similar nature websites", or that her roles cannot be verified from cast lists. Those reasons do nothing at all to answer the reason which was actually given for proposing deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I search alot but fail to find any reliable sources. I also noticed that this is the same copy-past version of the previously speedy deleted version. India Singh (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Her roles in Bombay Velvet, and Main Aur Charles are not significant enough. A few passing mentions in reliable sources don't indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have noted the keep rationale of Arxiloxos. This is essentially a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which is not normally given any weight in deletion discussions. Other articles might show community consensus for the inclusion of such topics if those articles had been through some kind of quality review (FA, GA, AFD, Peer review etc) but no such evidence has been presented. SpinningSpark 15:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brigham Young University residence halls[edit]

List of Brigham Young University residence halls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear to me why we should have an article on this. We wouldn't do the same for a city or village with lots of large residential buildings (apartments), even though regional newspapers will often discuss the start or finish of a new highrise or other somewhat larger building. But when they are on the grounds or belonging to a university, they somehow become notable (without being historic buildings, like in Oxford or so). I'm wondering where we should draw the line, and for me this crosses it, but it's worth a wider discussion to see how others feel about this. Fram (talk) 08:05, 18 November www2015 (UTC)

  • Keep residence serve the purposes of the university and are inherently a way to understand university purposes. They are notable enough to be covered in general histories and to have a book published about them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of the university is to educate students and to do research. Many things "serve" that purpose, but this list is in no way needed to understand that purpose. As for the "book published about them", do you mean "Brigham Young University: The First 100 Years."? That's not a book about the residence halls, and more importantly is published by the University, so not an independent source and not an indication of notability. If you mean another book, please make it explicit. Fram (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: Please familiarize yourself with the GNG and WP:V before continuing to create articles and vote in AfDs. This is a similar issue to the sourcing of mid-level LDS officials: a book commissioned by a college can't be used for notability of the college, or parts within the college. Also, remember that it's in-depth coverage: being name-dropped someplace doesn't necessarily convey notability. pbp 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The university is obviously notable. It is also obvious that we should include information about the residential facilities of any university. The real question is whether that information should be included in sufficient detail that a separate subarticle becomes appropriate as a spinout for space and size reasons. Per Category:University and college dormitories in the United States, it's evident that we have loads and loads of similar lists and articles on this topic, expressing a general consensus that this sort of content is appropriate. Singling out BYU is unwarranted as far as I can see.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One has to start somewhere. This one isn't "singled out", it's the first one I came across. And no, it is not "obvious that we should include information about the residential facilities of any university", residential facilities are not an essential part of a university. In many cases, a short mention on the main university article will be more than sufficient. The residential facilities themselves have to be notable enough to warrant a separate article. Fram (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Fram and Purplebackpack89. There does not seem to be significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources. Of course BYU likes to talk about itself. But that doesn't help the notability of the topic any. This kind of unwarranted detail really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It reminds me of the Transformers articles that used to come through here every few days. They, too, had many sources and dedicated fans who argued that they inherited notability from the franchise, but those articles were still deleted. Someone could start an official wiki at Wikia if they wanted, but it doesn't belong here until it satisfies the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication by way of sources that these residential buildings are notable. Just belonging to a university or its campus does not make ordinary apartment buildings magically notable.  Sandstein  20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Services Platform[edit]

User Services Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New term that is not currently WP:notable created as a placeholder. While it may become so in time it is WP:TOOSOON. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberoam Academy[edit]

Cyberoam Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as an advertisement with no claim of notability samtar {t} 11:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's rewritten (which I'm not going to do): advertisement. I haven't bothered to check the notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Spammy and poorly written. No indication to suggest that it's worth saving. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An acceptable example of G11 not to mention, no obvious convincing notability here. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement; I don't believe that notability is established here through sources. APerson (talk!) 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral education[edit]

Integral education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly a WP:SYNTH discussion of various efforts underway to teach integral theory (Ken Wilber) in various venues. There isn't a coherent subject here to consider. Meaningful and vetted material can be merged back into the main article on the subject. jps (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby[edit]

Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP article with no reliable sources. Quite possibly one or both are notable (Google reveals a lot of passing mentions and the like), but if so they should probably have separate articles, which can be (re)created at any time if somebody does find adequate sources.  Sandstein  14:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely for now as the list of awards is by itself enough to convince keeping and the close connections with the films also convince keeping. Any sourcing troubles can be later fixed if the article is currently notable and this is unlikely to be a deletion priority. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Marriott (actor)[edit]

John Marriott (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 14:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Doctors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Love Doctors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing. Page has only one independent source applied, that source doesn't link, and the archive for the link also doesn't work. A reasonable search finds nothing meeting WP:IRS. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. A cursory search on my end hasn't turned up any reliable sources either. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 15:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiz Sound[edit]

Symbiz Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable references, fails WP:GNG Ireneshih (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as unless some better German coverage can be found, I found some links at News but from some websites I'm not familiar with so there's not much for convincing improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion, or at least not explicitly opposed.  Sandstein  20:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Cloud[edit]

The Money Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Forbes is the only reliable sources other than that, company fails to expresses an identity. Ireneshih (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as this is not yet notable as it seems. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this. But there seem to be other sources about The Money Cloud out there, such as this one, which ranks Money Cloud top company to watch in Fintech industry - http://www.comparethecloud.net/articles/top-5-it-predictions-for-finance-sectors/.Bramble23 (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Bramble23[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xendo, Inc.[edit]

Xendo, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one reliable source. Company fails to expresses an identity, it is too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company. Ireneshih (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Too early to have a Wikipedia page for the company" - How old does a company need to be? Age is not a factor, it is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. You can find the links on the company's press page here - [34]. While I would like to see more coverage, I feel there is enough to meet WP:GNG. I am also not sure what failing to "express an identity" means. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Push to AfC I agree with nom, and note that you have to go beyond looking at the list of articles on the company's (highly selected) PR page and look at the actual articles. There are some "new product" announcements, which are often pumped out from press releases provided by the company. In addition, so many of these "new products" go belly up in a short while that we've discussed at wp:corp adding a kind of a hiatus for startups and new products (with exceptions on the latter, of course, for the most famous, like new Apple products). Most of the mid-depth articles are about the product, not the company, and the editor states in their first edit that they are mixing the two topics, which should be done carefully. The first two paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. The editor has less than 10 edits, an SPA with a high likelihood of COI. This article should go through AfC, and it may not make to main space at this moment in time. LaMona (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How would AfC be better than AfD? AfC is determined on the opinion of one reviewer when AfD is determined by consensus of editors? Seems like AfD would be the better place. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put in sandbox: This article doesn't seem that notable yet but good try. The creator should put it back into a draft and improve it for now. Vincent60030 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One reliable source (TechCrunch) is sufficient, and there are a few others that are somewhat marginal sites in terms of journalism but are independent (e.g. MakeUseOf). The company clearly exists and does what the article it does. It's notability is established by the sources. There's no "too early" guideline for companies. --Sbwoodside (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering this has been relisted twice, I'm notifying DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who all ask to be notified of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably not yet notable. The information for widespread use comes from company-dervived sources and is not reliable. I'm getting really disappointed in TeleChrunch: they published what is essentially a press release. Thiwsshould not be put into draft space. If it is notable an article should be written by someone without such obvious connection to the firm. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the TechCrunch article and do not consider it "essentially a press release". It is a neutral summary of Xendo and its product. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshed Lawyer[edit]

Khurshed Lawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence whatever of notability. Nothing I can find suggests that he is more than a minor actor with minor roles. (PROD was removed by an IP editor, without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he's clearly not a major or otherwise well-known actor to suggest better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering that even the "keep" opinion says that "The article currently contains nothing worth saving". But can be userfied on request if somebody wants to write a real article.  Sandstein  21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Burn[edit]

Natalie Burn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Would not pass WP:GNG Zpeopleheart (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly notable for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. The existing article is trash, nothing more than an IMDB data dump, but a Google search easily turned up coverage of the subject, mostly of the tabloid variety (e.g. Daily Mail here and here). Seems like some of the coverage is under her Ukrainian name. The article currently contains nothing worth saving, but it's probably possible to write an encyclopedic article about the subject (though I have no intention of doing so). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rhythm Engineering.  Sandstein  21:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Chandra[edit]

Reggie Chandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some notability is existing, but most links are about his company and not him. Found just 2 source about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 additional sources added that specifically talk about Reggie Chandra.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 additional sources added specifically about Reggie Chandra.

  • Redirect to Rhythm Engineering for now perhaps as News, browser searches and Highbeam all found the most for this and it simply seems there's no better independent notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4 More links added to support Reggie's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One800jon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources look like PR articles. Those are not independent sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Edited content to validate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.255.188 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. I'm going to close this with no prejudice of being quickly recreated, as there's no consensus for any firm action. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carp-Talk[edit]

Carp-Talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with no in-depth independent sources. Those given are a Guardian article written by somebody from the magazine ("Here at Carp-Talk magazine..."), and a fishing equipment company's blog entry about an award they won from Carp-Talk. McGeddon (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping He (fashion designer)[edit]

Ping He (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was originally PROD'd by Wcam, appears to have always been a promotional/WP:ADMASK article. While the subject is probably notable enough for an article, I feel the current article needs blowing up and starting over from scratch as from the beginning it appears to have always been a conflict-of-interest piece. The edit history page is fascinating - multiple single-purpose accounts using very similar names, such as creator Luke078 (Ping's husband is called Luke - per this source and the sole source in the earliest verison of the article has a Luke O'Brien commenting to praise the subject - coincidence?) and LO090764); the subtly and not-at-all-conflict-of-interest-sounding PINGHE.Des1gn and PINGHE.Des2gn; and more recently, Aongusjoseph and Angusjosephwilson - I did a bit of poking around and it turns out that someone called Angus Joseph is Creative Assistant for PINGHE... Given that the Proposed Deletion was removed, I am bringing this to AFD. Mabalu (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mabalu and PROD nom. --Wcam (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vaughan (CEO)[edit]

Richard Vaughan (CEO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established. The corresponding article at Wikipedia in Spanish was deleted following the AfD (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Richard_Vaughan_%28empresario%29). Technopat (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly much even for general notability and it's surprising ES.Wiki actually deleted this before as we're usually the advanced ones (both quality and standards) of the Wiki Projects. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per quick internet search. It doesn't appear that all of the very few entries that came up even pertain to this specific individual. smileguy91talk - contribs 19:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- nothing in searches turned up enough to show that they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elchin Khalilov[edit]

Elchin Khalilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the notability criteria. Elchin Khalilov is the founder/cofounder of a number of organisations of dubious scientific credibility, most of which have been deleted from Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination)).

The article list dubious prices he was awarded of which I can find no reference anywhere: "Nobel Prize Winner Pavlov Golden Chest Badge" and the "Nobel Prize Winner P.N.Kapitsa Silver Medal “To author of scientific discovery”". Even if there is such an award I would doubt that it comes with grammatical errors in it's inscription.

It seems that he uses this self-generated credibility to sell dubious earthquake prediction machines ("the Global Network allows predicting earthquakes all over the Eastern Hemisphere with a 90% probability") to developing countries.

This article is full of references that don't check out (just checking randomly a few): Number 26: A book with this ISBN is nowhere referenced. Number 8 claims to be from The NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme, but the url is "http://www.sfp-982167.org" and the site is gone. Most of the other references come directly from one of the circle of his organisation.
DieBuche (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I've tried to check out some of the links and references as the nom has and I couldn't find them. It's not the WP community's best use of time to check every single source to see if there's a single pearl in the faked/promo links. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The presence of scammers like the International Biographical Centre in the references and pseudoscientific organizations like the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences in the awards and honors throws the whole thing into question. And as already said, the sheer volume of puffery in this one makes it impossible to tell whether there is any actual notability hidden among all the rest. Another bad sign is the highly prolific publication claimed in the article in contrast with the low citation numbers (max=18) found by Google scholar. The Lenin Komsomol Prize may be real (I didn't find sources to check, but I would expect them to be in Russian) but it's the only thing that looks like a legitimate honor in the article and as a junior-researcher prize it's not enough. And the nominator's accusations that the subject is using this material to peddle pseudoscience is troubling. Per WP:FRINGE, we need a mainstream scientific evaluation of his work, and obtaining that seems unlikely, but without it we have a problem with maintaining a neutral point of view. All said, there are many bad points about this article and nothing good enough to rise to a justification for a keep, so I think it should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_3&oldid=1142626353"