Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Considering the (lack of) evidence found I'm calling this a hoax and nuking this (and the royal family article) per G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Martorey[edit]

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

Every source I find does not support the fact that this is a kingdom. A geographic spot on the map, perhaps. I also have the article covering the "royal family" up at AFD, which was without source. Without clearly showing this is a kingdom, we pretty much have to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any external references attesting to the existence of this kingdom. None of the Internet-accessible references in the article in any way attest to the Kingdom of Martorey, as distinct from the hamlet of Martorey, at least as far as my ability of read French goes. Appears to fail WP:V and may be a hoax. Thparkth (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martorant royal family. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martory is a hamlet according to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landry_(Savoie) . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to wherever we're sticking these non-notable micronations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:51, 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 speedy delete. Indistinguishable from a hoax, so its deletion is indistinguishable from a G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martorant royal family[edit]

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

Royal family for an unrecognized micronation. No sources, no point in redirecting as it isn't really a plausible term. CSD doesn't really fit here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not so much "unrecognized micronation", more "unverifiable and probably made up micronation". Thparkth (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Martorey. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indistinguishable from a hoax. No Google results at all? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:55, 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. KTC (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Dynamic DNS providers[edit]

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

Not seeing how this fits under CSD, but this does seem to fit under Wikipedia not being a price guide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's not an encyclopedia article; that's a shopping guide. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an intrinsically unencyclopedic topic. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is precedent for this sort of article (see Comparison of wiki software), but this article as it stands now should be blown up and started over. A comparison of features (well-sourced, mind) would be encyclopedic, but a price guide is not. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. One quick search shows all the notability needed. Speedy closing as there is snowball's chance of this turning into anything more than a dogpile of keeps due to the nomination rationale being entirely faulty. The article is in a bad shape but AfD is not for cleanup. The nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE - and WP:BITE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kaskel[edit]

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

Non-notable real estate agent. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whether he's notable or not, he does not appear to be a mere "real estate agent." He is described as a "real estate developer and hotelier best known for starting Doral Hotel Corporation, Doral Hotels and Resorts, Doral Construction, and Carol Management, the family companies, which developed, owned, and managed a number of hotels, apartment buildings, and office buildings in New York City, Florida, Chicago, and Boston."
According to Doral, Florida and to the Gnews search results in the link above, real estate pioneers Alfred and Doris Kaskel founded this community and it is indeed named for them, combining the first syllables of their names. Alfred Kaskel, and possibly Alfred and Doris Kaskel together, appear to me to be clearly notable. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see he's also the grandfather of publisher Steven Schragis (who does not yet have an article here) and is prominently mentioned in Schragis' New York Magazine profile here, that I found in Gbooks. And of course the Doral Golf Course (since renamed for Trump) is a well-known PGA venue -- it actually comprises 5 courses -- and Kaskel's creation of it is the subject of this 1962 newspaper paper article. There's really no shortage of material on him, if one does a little WP:BEFORE work. Given the mislabelling of him a real estate agent in the nomination, I have to wonder how much of that took place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it also does seem to be a WP:BITEy way to greet new editor @Anonxyz123:, who it seems to me has started an article on a notable American developer, only to have it promptly brought to Afd under the shakiest of rationales. Not a great start for him or her. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Founder of Doral ("DOR"is and "AL"fred). Sources abound, not just in the clicks you can follow above, but in a short walk around Doral/Miami. This nomination is way off base. I don't see how WP:BEFORE could have been followed on this one. Jacona (talk) 15:14, 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. KTC (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness of the President of South Africa[edit]

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

Hardly seems necessary, doesn't really belong on here. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm hard-pressed to find a policy this violates, but it just seems way too mundane for an encyclopedia. Handedness can be noted on the article page of the person, if at all. I doubt it would even work as a category, since it would be far too broad to be of any use. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to see if reliable sources are found and added. Clearly if it is not sourced it should not remain, but it still seems early. We have Handedness of Presidents of the United States which does have sources, so it is possible to have sources for such an article. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that exist. Well, at least that means there's precedent... clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs here. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using this argument, which is essentially a personal preference. Why does this not belong(assuming it had sources, which it currently does not)? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems to me that it isn't even remotely notable. I agree with Clpo13's original post, it could belong in the article about the person, but this article is hardly remarkable or informative. JQTriple7 ^talk 23:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since all four presidents are right-handed, it's very unlikely this would have been remarked upon in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it's about content in general (and not notability), WP:ONUS says that just because something can be sourced doesn't mean that it should be included. However, that's an argument for another discussion. For this article topic, I don't see a way this can satisfy WP:LISTN. The results I see are about "heavy-handedness" or "even-handedness". It's possible there's some scientific study somewhere that I missed, but I'm really not thinking this is a major topic of discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For this to even begin to approach WP:Notability there must be multiple sources that discuss, in significant detail, the phenomenon "handedness of presidents of South Africa". Mentions, or even in-depth discussion, of the handedness of any individual president is insufficient - the sources must discuss the handedness of "presidents of South Africa" as a collective/class. There is simply no reasonable basis for the existence of this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt not appear to be a point of discussion or notability so really not an encyclopedic subject. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of cruft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powertech Technology[edit]

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

Frankly I also wasn't sure about this one regarding PROD or AfD as the best I found was basically only these links (several within the first few pages) but none of them suggest obvious better notability and improvement so here we are for better insight. Considering both the information here and the few amounts of coverage, I'm curious how active this company still is. Notifying author In ictu oculi. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taiwanese chip companies of a certain size are usually notable, as they are major players in the market. Here's some coverage: [1] from Bloomberg Businessweek (this seems to have been a big deal, and it's all over Google News), [2] from Xbit Labs (I consider this an RS), [3] from Barron's (brief mention), and lots from the Taipei Times: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Some of these Taipei Times articles are a little routine, but others are quite substantial. Plus, there's plenty more where these came from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources located by NinjaRobotPirate, subject appears to satisfy relevant inclusion guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:51, 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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White City SC[edit]

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

Non-notable club, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even any signs of better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. YoungIreland (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. The team briefly played in the New South Wales First Division, the third tier state league. There are a few mentions in news reports, but nothing that would constitute significant coverage. Generally teams below the top tier state league struggle to get even routine coverage. Hack (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Craven Railway Station[edit]

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

None notable proposed railway station on a line that hasn't existed since 1970. There are no references to this station beyond the campaign group's own literature. Nthep (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTALballing. If kept, move to West Craven railway station in accordance with WP:NCUKSTATIONS. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that page has been moved by Welsh (talk · contribs) to West Craven railway station (see WP:AFDEQ, last bullet). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing on Google to even confirm it's being built, Fails CRYSTAL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. At most it fails CRYSTAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 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 keep. The keep arguments put forth by editors who read Korean are strong. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Song Yoo-geun[edit]

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

The individual in question, a child prodigy, does not seem notable. His accomplishments sound impressive, but impressive accomplishments do not automatically merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I could only find a little bit of coverage clustering around a few events: a couple news articles from when he entered college, an interview he gave earlier this year (and a lot of blogs, reddit threads, etc. linking to it), and some blog posts earlier this week because an article he co-authored was found to be plagiarized. None of this seems to qualify as significant enough covage to meet the notability requirements for people in general, for academics, or the general notability guideline; rather, it all feels somewhat ONEEVENTy. Note, there is a corresponding article on Korean WP (), which has more references cited, but I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Song Yoo-geun to evaluate the sources there and nothing significant was turned up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that the coverage of him is pretty much ONEVENTish, and also has poblems due to the fact that it focuses on a plagiarism, in which he probably played a second fiddle to his supervisor, this raises issues related to WP:BLP and WP:CRIME. We miss Plagiarism in South Korea to which this could be merged, but frankly, there is little to merge and rescue here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and my searches found a few links but simply not enough for an independently notable article, merge and redirect wherever necessary though if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its ~~present~~ 14 August 2015 state, this page creates no harm to anyone, so that CRIME and Biography of a Living Person are irrelevant. Saying that a 2005 one shoot event is not sufficient for notoriety would have not been an argument in a June 2015 Article for Deletion survey, since other events were recorded by Korean press small articles (not only blogs, but established newspapers). But now, a notable event has occurred. It happened that serially breaching the rules in order to "grow the future Korean Nobel Prize in Physic" (and serially depicting doubts as jealousy) has produced unforeseen results. For the moment, the best thing to do is to freeze the article in its ~~present~~ 14 August 2015 state, and wait to see what will say the main Korean newspapers (and other reliable sources) during the next months to come. Pldx1 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC). Sarcasm against Pldx1: don't use weasel words, be specific about versions ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "this page creates no harm to anyone", please see WP:NOHARM. Regarding "the best thing to do is...wait to se what will say the main Korean newspapers", please see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Rjanag. The key part of my first sentence was so that. And, relative to this page creates no harm to anyone, so that CRIME and Biography of a Living Person are irrelevant, invocation of WP:NOHARM is irrelevant. Indeed, this page create no harm was not intended as an argument to keep, but as an argument to refute a delete opinion based on an alleged harm. If you disagree about harm v. no harm, please state it clearly. Assuming there is no harm (in exactly the 14 August 2015 version of the article), we have a large amount of time (circa one week) to discuss quietly about the other argument, i.e. notoriety. Reliable sources are telling us that various procedural rules have been broken by various Korean institutions, all these breaches being done asserting they were done for the best final benefit, i.e. growing a perhaps future Nobel Prize. If you have doubt about this fact (and more precisely about the fact that Reliable Sources are saying that), please state it clearly. Examining if this factoid (to call it that way) is worth of an article, or even of a mention in an article, is another discussion.
And now it remains to have an opinion about the correct timing of a possible deletion of this article. It is crystal clear that none of us can read the future, in a crystal ball nor in any other device. I am not sure that a quotation from WP adds any truth to this axiom, but I agree with you that this is a reasonable axiom. And now, my opinion about our best move to follow the primum non nocere rule is to do nothing during one or two months from now. Wait and see the behaviour of Reliable Sources. Since Wikipedia is one of the most watched internet venue, erasing the article just right now (i.e. just after the publication of the AAS retractation) could be perceived as a white-washing attempt from one or the other involved parties. Creating by ourselves a Streisand effect about an event that is not yet evaluated as under the radar or as over the radar by the Reliable Sources is not something that we shall do. Pldx1 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you focus on English language sources only, you will miss the extensive coverage of this individual in Korea. Please see w:ko:송유근 and the twelve sources used in that article. 웃웃 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, 웃웃. Actually I asked about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Song Yoo-geun, but from the summaries that were given to me there it sounded like the Korean-language sources were not contributing any additional relevant information beyond what the English ones did. Note that 12 is just an arbitrary number and does not in of itself make an article notable or non-notable; it's the content of the references that matters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Rjanag. Following the link, it appears that you haven't asked actually, but four days ago. And the answer you got, 15:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC), was: at that date the w:ko article was containing a 2005 part (roughly equal to the w:en 2014 article) and a more recent part roughly equal to any other description of the studies of any pop-star, more about playing drums and tennis. This changed a lot in four days. The formal retractation of an article, published by the American Astronomical Society, motivated by an exceptionally large overlap with a paper published in 2002... seems to have triggered a lot of comments in Korea, while the Encyclopedia has to take her time for acting as a tertiary source. Moreover, we have now a lot of English articles published in Reliable Sources covering the recent events. Among them, The Korea Herald (www.koreaherald.com), Korean Joongang Daily (koreajoongangdaily.joins.com, 3 articles), Korea Times (www.koreatimes.co.kr, among them an Editorial comment), Yonhap News Agency (english.yonhapnews.co.kr), The Donga Ilbo (english.donga.com). Therefore, the factoid "something turned wrong in a long term process" is largely noticeable and established. What to say about this long term process, from 2005 to 2015, is a content discussion, not to be discussed here. Pldx1 (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It's not BLP1E, he has consistent coverage from Korean media following his Univ. entrance at age 7, and from his other stuff in Korea. I will be producing references in few hours. (Phone now.) — regards, Revi 00:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Google: 2015-04, 2009-11, 2005-10... (Beware: You must be able to read Korean to read article properly.) — regards, Revi 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Not only is this being reported on in the Korean press (the retraction is major news), but there are other, English-language sites such as ScholarlyOA that are referring to this Wikipedia article. --WiseWoman (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that other sites refer to this article have to do with the notability of the subject?

I was aware of the scholarlyoa coverage when I nominated this article; I even mentioned it above in my deletion rationale, if you are aware of it. The question is not whether that coverage exists, but whether it constitutes evidence of notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I have started editing this page to show just how much press conference Song has gotten (at a regular interval, as a headline-worthy news). It's a big job, and it'll take a few days to complete, but his life events have been reported starting at about 2004, and he was front-page news for about a week because of his plagiarism controversy. I would say that Song has received much more media coverage than Kim Ung-Yong, and unless you vote to delete his page also (and some more), I don't think that deleting this page makes sense. Song is honestly a household name, and many parents would say things like "I hope that my child is as smart as Song Yoo Geun." He is certainly noteworthy (case in point: although I grew up outside of Korea, I grew up hearing his name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolmayas1 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep:although it doesn't seem to be on the article, there was a 5-part documentary made about him back in the day (tried to Google quickly but phones have limitations. I'll try to produce that reference at some point), which brought in an incredible number of viewers. He is most definitely not one event y, and he has received significant coverage all his life. Unless the op has another reason, every reason that the op suggested so far is very far from the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:4D:C402:9019:744E:C00:2D6D (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Awolmayas1 and 2607:FB90:4D:C402:9019:744E:C00:2D6D: If you guys can produce those references that would be helpful. Unfortunately "I remember there is a lot of coverage" is not so useful, but if you provide the sources that will go a long way towards indicating notability. As you can see from reading above, the original of the article did not demonstrate notability at all, and I actually did make quite a lot of effort to find coverage outside of the article (including asking Korean speakers for help, since I don't know Korean) but didn't find anything useful. So if there is stuff that is useful, that would change the picture. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjanag You might see that I have already started editing the article (of course, if you don't speak Korean, most of the references that I cite won't make much sense) but I have indeed started producing the references. You should also see that pretty much every stage of his life is well-documented. The way consensus is going, it is likely that he is actually not a child prodigy, but either way, he will be talked about for generations to come, either as a genius or as a big fraud. I agree that the original article did not demonstrate notability, and I do plan to keep editing, but it is a lot of work sifting through tens of thousands of articles. Incidentally, it would be helpful if you can comment on the current (in-progress) version of the article, instead of the original article. Also, your Korean speaker friends didn't tell you that they know this guy? That's bizarre. I'd like to know how your Korean speaker friends helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolmayas1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the argument for deleting seems to be based on GNG and 1E, and none of the users making these arguments appear to read Korean, the language in which most of the RSs discussing the topic are obviously written. Saying "I asked on WikiProject Korea and they couldn't find a lot of better sources" isn't adequate, since this was done less than 24 hours before this AFD, and to date there has only been one response from another editor (who opposes this AFD). It would also appear that this person is notable for at least two events. Until more Korean-speaking Wikipedians have examined the sources and determined whether or not this figure actually has received significant coverage in his home country, I don't see why we should be rushing to delete the article. If there was concern that this figure was primarily known for something negative but BLP prevented us from discussing that in a neutral manner, then I would say the best path would be deletion, but no one seems to be making that argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 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 List of supercentenarians from Oceania. There is strong and near-unanimous consensus here against having a stand-alone article. Less clear whether delete, redirect, or merge is the desired result, and if redirect, to where. I went with the more specific redirect target. If people disagree on the target, that's a matter to be hashed out on article talk pages. Also, leaving the history intact, so if people want to merge any additional information, hash that out on the talk pages as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Finch[edit]

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

The two sources here (one is dead though) seem to be WP:ROUTINE obituaries rather than evidence of notability. Suggest deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is just no claim of notability except she was pretty old when she died. See [10] for some really good rational. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being on List of oldest people by country is sufficient mention. I like the notable because they were not notable for so long comment in the Astrid Zachrison AfD discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This source GRG is regarded as reliable, and was sixth oldest person, though not enough coverage for a standalone article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to List of oldest people by country. Subject fails WP:GNG There's no significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Human longevity is an important (and notable) subject for any decent encyclopedia. But biographies of every long-lived person, simply because they were long-lived, is not in compliance with our rules. Happily, some of the folks who originally salted our encyclopedia with hundreds of these stubs have hit on a better solution. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC Are you suggesting a merge is unreasonable for a person that was the sixth oldest in the world at one point with minor coverage? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no, not unreasonable. Just not the option that seems best to me here. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we try to keep the information here? I mean there are younger supercentenarians that have receive more coverage unfortunately, not sure why this happened, but preserving is better here I urge you to reconsider a merge/redirect instead of deleting, I feel one day she may receive more coverage or perhaps sources we missed ... High Beam anyone? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up with more coverage. EEng (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of supercentenarians from Oceania. Agree with Valoem. Worthy of recognition for being an all-time national record holder, but insufficient coverage for a standalone article. Enough for a mini biography. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a mini-bio? There is nothing in this article that isn't already available in one of the five or so tables she's on. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oldest ever person in a country is notable. This is called common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no inherent notability in being the oldest in the country especially in a country with a small population. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar She was the sixth oldest living person in the world at the time. I agree there is not enough sources for a keep, but what is wrong with a merge? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect to one of the other articles that mention her, eg, List of oldest people by country, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, List of British supercentenarians. This is akin to a pseudo-biography of a person notable for only one event. Nurg (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of supercentenarians from Oceania. Per above and David in DC. This article tells us nothing about her other than her name, age and country of birth/death. Not seeing anything to merge either. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N. Redirect can (and usually does) follow deletion. Canadian Paul 06:00, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infogrid Pacific[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, and looks to be borderline promotional. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned with my speedy tag, I found only passing mentions from searches. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister. A search results only in company profiles or passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger than Big[edit]

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

No references since 2010. At present, nothing in the article asserts the subject's notability. FallingGravity (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably Speediable under one criterion or another. Certainly PROD-worthy. Abject failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG at all. clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I have restored vandalised text which claims the song made 19 in the UK charts. At that point notability must be reconsidered. Ping Carrite, clpo13< and FallingGravity --Richhoncho (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Find documentation that the song charted at #19 in the UK and get a footnote of that fact into the text and I'll gladly switch my opinion here. I'm still not seeing it. Carrite (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NSONG, I'm not sure a song peaking at #19 is sufficient indication of notability, even if sourced. That plus additional in-depth discussion of the song in independent sources would be enough, but I'm still leaning towards delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alveda Music[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable music group, founded by an individual whose article was deleted for the same reason (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcos Panagiotis). The article is also an unattributed copy of its own site here and was created with a COI tag already in place. Speedy deletion (CSD A7 - notability, CSD G12 - copyvio) was contested by a new user who purports to be the founder himself. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as this is not applying to any of the guidelines (GNG or musicians and bands). SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references provided to back up anything here. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:48, 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. After addition of more sources, keep appears to be in order. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVShow Time[edit]

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

The references are almost entirely from its own site--not notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the best my searches found was only this and this so there's hardly any convincingly obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we can get some comments from folks who understand French, as I can't evaluate the French sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Independent reliable coverage:

TechCrunch - TVShow Time Releases Sleek New App For Its Community Of TV Addicts (there are other TC articles)

Huffington Post "in association with LaMonde" (not sure of the status of this source) - TVShow Time, l'appli française qui change la façon de regarder les séries télé (about how TVShow Time is changing how people watch TV
Wired (italy) - TvShow Time: come Netflix, ma più economica e con i torrent

--Sbwoodside (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per sources found using the Google news link atop this discussion. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "TVShow Time, l'appli française qui change la façon de regarder les séries télé". Le Huffington Post. 15 July 2015.
^ "TvShow Time: come Netflix, ma più economica e con i torrent". Wired. 25 November 2014.
^ "TVShow Time Releases Sleek New App For Its Community Of TV Addicts". TechCrunch. AOL. 15 July 2015.
^ "TVShow Time Lets You Stream All Your Favorite TV Shows Thanks To Put.io". TechCrunch. AOL. 3 March 2014.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ayaana[edit]

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

Article on a young singer. I have looked at the sources already provided, and I have searched for more among the many actual Ghits she gets. So far I have not been able to find reliable, secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline for people. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator. Most of the "press" available is from blogs or her own website, with only a few name drops from reliable sources. Seems to be a case of TOOSOON. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not satisfy notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's clearly not even anything for general notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keon-A Information Technology Co. Ltd[edit]

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

Borderline notability and major promotional issues, but the parts are there and this could be salvaged...maybe. First, though, the community has its say on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the company generate revenue of USD$ 25,000,000 (+20%) i don't know if you can consider that notability or promotional--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the I tagged this for G11, thinking it was best given I also found nothing better than passing mentions. Unless this can actually be improved, which I doubt, that may make things look better. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete poorly sourced. Blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALLINMINI[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability and looks like a WP:COI issue, promotion for a new & not particularly notable company. JamesG5 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. possibly by A7. I can find nothing useful on the web, but I do recognize there conceivably thee might be some in Chinese. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as I share what the others say, hardly even much for notability and even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tintin[edit]

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

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing at all and I'm not gathering anything to suggest a better article. It's also worth noting I was one of the many first reviewers of this article when it first started in April 2012 so I may distantly vaguely remember and it's not surprising it hasn't changed since then (SPA account of course). Notifying PRODer AllyD and I'm not sure how often PRODer Theopolisme logs in anymore but I'll notify him anyway (if you see this, long time no see ). SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches[edit]

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

This article is the exact copy of the "Match summary" section from the 2014 FIFA World Cup article. A merge was proposed a few weeks ago, but at this point there's nothing left to merge. There's no need for this article anymore, considering how I doubt anyone would rather open a new page just to read a table than simply expand a folded table found in the main article Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to get rid of this page, you also have to think of the other List of FIFA World Cup matches which goes from 1990 to the present day. Matt294069 is coming 19:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally redundant list. Offers nothing more than what is already in the main article. If this deletion is successful, then we should definitely consider Matt's comments about the other World Cup match lists being put up too. Spiderone 09:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Match_summary. I lean towards redirection rather than outright deletion, as it's a conceivable article title for someone familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions to search for when looking for match results. Aspirex (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed. Giant Snowman 14:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant, and people looking for these matches will likely look in the full article. Agree that any previous lists should also be reviewed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:08, 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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The lifting of text from the Scream and Scream 2 IMDB articles sealed the deal. The original editor's other articles were following the same pattern, and I think any reasonable administrator would delete the article in this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Scream (2016 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NFF. IMDb mentions this title as "in development" but nothing else. I can't find acting credits for actors on IMDb so suspect this is a hoax as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No sources so also fails WP:Verifiability and could be a hoax. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's a hoax, we probably need to look at all edits from Adamiraki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make sure they don't have the same issue. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 18:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing at all and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax, close paraphrase of Scream 2 with a few changes to actors' names. Article creator has made a bloody pest of himself all day, spamming unsourced vanity pages about himself and his films, attempting end-runs around BLP prod with bad faith page moves, etc. Screaming Massacre by same editor is a similarly lazy hoax, just a copypaste from Scream (1996 film) with his name and his friends' names dropped in, plus a large dollop of copyvio from the IMDB entry on the 1996 Scream. Norvoid (talk) 18:53, 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 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]

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]

Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki bar[edit]

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

This article is entirely original research, and none of the sources opine on the subject of tiki bars themselves. Which Hazel? (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not so, there are two sources in the External links section already that explicitly discuss them as "tiki bars": Wired and the Food Republic blog. And a Google search reveals more, even Popular Mechanics is telling folks how to build their own "Tiki bar", while Toronto's weekly Now is telling us that TIKI BAR MANIA HEATS UP IN TORONTO. This is a notable and distinct style of drinking establishment that meets WP:GNG, and this main article for the Category:Tiki bars needs to be improved, not deleted. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable style of commercial or home bar. Lots of results at Google Book search describe them as a 20th century craze: [11], [12], [13], [14] , [15] ,[16]. Edison (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable example of cultural history. I've converted two of the dead link references to inline, webarchived cites and I've added some more references throughout. As Edison notes, there is a wealth of additional reference information to support notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:51, 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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason De Carteret[edit]

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

There is nothing here to show the notability of the subject. The one reference given talks of a failed exploration attempt. Egghead06 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator seems to have removed a couple of dead references from the article just before nominating it - it might have been preferable to simply have marked them as deadlinks and left them in, in case the rest of us could find them archived somewhere. Though having said that, there was just enough detail in the references before the nominator deleted them that I am not sure that they would have been deemed reliable by current standards even when the pages were live. Also, I note that while the article easily survived AfD back in 2008, we can't see the article as it was then because of WP:COPYVIO problems identified in 2010 - is any kind admin in a position to tell us whether there were further references in the article then? (Or are we just dealing with changing notability standards?) PWilkinson (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've restored the deadlinks for any editors to make their own mind up.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've resuscitated the links (best not to delete dead links in the first place). No opinion on the article. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll go with keep. He has just married a wikinotable so there's been some more biographical information. I know some people disregard sources that publish about someone only because they have a notable relative but I don't think we should be judging journalists' motivations. I've added something.Thincat (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also WP:INHERITED and WP:BLPSOURCES - I've remove the tabloid refs.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the BBC article and a few others not cited in the article, such as this, clinch it for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Guernsey explorer sets sights on Kalahari desert". BBC News.
^ "Guernsey man part of team breaking South Pole record". BBC News.
^ "The ultimate winter car". Telegraph.co.uk. 4 November 2011.
^ "Meet Jason De Carteret". mirror.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lewis (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, entirely unsourced once unretrievable deadlinks were deprecated, of a person notable only as the deputy leader of a minor political party and as a non-winning candidate in provincial and federal elections. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — the deputy leadership might count for something if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but does not confer an inclusion freebie if the sourcing for it is weak or nonexistent, and the non-winning candidacies don't contribute any enduring notability at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clear case of an unelected politician, thus failing the WP:POLITICIAN high bar to inclusion. Was not a provincial party leader, which I personally argue would be an exception to that. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Merchants[edit]

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

There is no indication this lower league ice hockey team comes anywhere close to meeting WP:CORP, as is required for articles about sports teams. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this discussion not surfaced with other articles I have created for similar teams, or for teams of even lower levels? The St. Albert Merchants are multi-time provincial and Western Canada champions, and articles about lesser teams exist across many leagues. Some articles of similar notability but with fewer or no citations, not to mention less importance, include: Junior B:

And other Junior C teams:

These are all articles about much lower level junior hockey teams, with a less time of existence and less success over the years, yet they, and countless others, still exist and are not challenged. I see no reason why the page for the St. Albert Merchants is not notable. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I'm curious as to how there is no evidence presented in this article that could deem it notable. Surely a team with their established history and success is notable? If they were a recently established team of the same league, say, from 2010, then I might be inclined to agree, but they were founded in 1983, and have won many provincial championships. I see no reason why deletion is necessary. Surely there is no harm done to Wikipedia for having this article? It is also, if I may be so bold, properly sourced, which many articles akin to it are not. However, if the consensus of Wikipedia editors are against me, I shall concede and not return the argument, though I still think the existence of far less notable articles alone makes the page for the Merchants a notable article. Thank you. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comparing against other articles isn't really a valid argument to make (see WP:WAX), nor is saying that inclusion does not harm (WP:NOHARM). Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams states that sports teams are assessed as any other company and that provides the inclusion requirements. That the team has existed since 1983 and had provincial success does not of itself indicate notability, but if can be shown that those things have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources then notability requirements probably have been met. I have not seen that such coverage exists, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply curious as to why this article in particular has been nominated for deletion when countless others of lower coverage and notability have remained unchallenged. As for coverage in reliable independent sources, the highest coverage comes from city newspapers in the cities of which the majority of teams in the Capital Junior Hockey League play. I have included some links here from varying sources, hoping it appeases you, but I must make my point that this team receives about as much coverage as any Junior B hockey team. They all mention or discuss the Merchants in some way, some more than others.

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]

I have more if you need them. God bless. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Junior B teams that have existed for a lengthy period have typically been found to be notable. You can usually find sources for them in papers. Some sources are already linked in this discussion for example. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, DJSasso. I'm glad someone agrees with me. I said before as well that this team is highly notable within its respective category, and much less noteworthy teams exist. I understand that comparing is not an argument, but I was convinced of the notability of this article. ~~Iheartthestrals (talk - contribs) 18:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Notable team. Has sources. Competes for Keystone Cup. DMighton (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage to meet notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 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 speedily deleted by User:Boing! said Zebedee (under criterion G7), who is watching the page for potential recreation. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 18:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fancyfurever[edit]

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

I see no evidence for the notability of this book - only evidence for its existence, which is not sufficient. It does not appear to satisfy the criteria at WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Google searching finds Facebook, Twitter, the book's site, Instagram, but nothing actually about the book in reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Canadian ISBN registration number as well as copy right information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.0.20 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do actually read WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, and don't waste any more time until you understand them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I'm a bit curious as to why books can't fall under WP:CSD though. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of the article has just requested speedy deletion per WP:G7, which would normally be fine. However, the edit summary was "Please delete page. We will check issues and repost", and I don't think we can bypass this AFD discussion and allow it to simply be recreated - the issue is that the book is not notable, and that's not something that can be changed by "checking issues". I have therefore declined the request, and I think this discussion should continue and decide whether or not this is a notable subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They keep re-tagging the article, so I guess the path of least resistance and minimum effort is to just accept the G7 and delete it - and I have done that now. I'll watch the article and will start another AFD if it is recreated with insufficient support for notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tsakiris[edit]

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

Fails our WP:BIO notability rules especially those governing WP:AUTHOR. Being referenced by others is not enough to confer notability. In order to be notable, you must actually be the subject of a serious reference work. Appearing on Coast to Coast is also not a signal of notability (lots of non-notable people are guests on that show). Furthermore, he is not notable for his book which would not pass WP:BK in any case. jps (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this subject does not seeem to have had any significant mainstream coverage. I don't think a bunch of guest appearances on fringe media add up to any significant notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as although Books, Highbeam and browsers all found several links, I would suggest drafting and userfying until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Sources on article have originating place hidden, and they don't add up to anything real. Can't see him ever meeting it without a big change. Didn't find reliable sources for book or blog which would have earned one of them an article instead. {Please note it's Skeptiko, not Skeptico, podcast. Two podcasts with similar names but a completely different outlook. That's got to be a mess.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet the notability criteria for fringe theorists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual fails WP:AUTHOR, the book fails WP:BK, and the podcast fails WP:WEB. His few passing mentions in reliable sources don't warrant a standalone article, though he may qualify for inclusion in a list article, although I don't know which one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:11, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) LM2000 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victin Ryan[edit]

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

Hoax. Not listed at http://www.profightdb.com/search.html?search-term=korklan&submit=search See https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/3vhq36/found_a_fake_wrestler_wiki_page/ for more details. ©Geni (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. Nice catch! smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Lol, they used Buff Bagwell's picture. Hoax.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax WP:G3 Mega Z090 (talk) 21:50, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Abromeit[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28, this article about an actress, previously speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7, is referred to AfD to determine the subject's notability. Note that the article was recreated after the speedy deletion; the previously deleted content can be seen in the history. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's of course a major series and a great hit, but nonetheless she does not play one of the major characters: the secretary to one of the major characters. The article on the series has one relevant ref. in addition to the one in this article, from Vivaglam, "Meet Susie Abromeit of Netflix’s “Jessica Jones”["http://vivaglammagazine.com/meet-susie-abromeit-of-netflixs-jessica-jones/], which describes her as an "up-and-coming actress" DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep she has been cover by maxim under hot 10 [28] and here [29] and here [30] though these are interviews. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems notable enough. -- Taku (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jessica Jones for now perhaps as my searches found several mentions but perhaps nothing for better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect to Jessica Jones, she was notable before that [31]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Susie Abromeit does not have that, only really mild coverage at best. (With the links DGG and Valoem provided seeming iffy at best). And only recently because of a minor role in Jessica Jones. This really just seems like a user trying to create the article for her because they saw her in Jessica Jones and she didn't have a Wikipedia page, which probably lead to the thinking "She should have one, I'll create it." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally the reason why articles are created. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lede speculates that "She is perhaps best-known for..." Perhaps not. Perhaps she's barely known at all. All the information about her in this stub comes from a document which is not a reliable source. Some day, she may become notable. We'll be able to tell because she will have garnered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of herself. Until then, this subject fails WP:GNG. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC I provided sources above, I agree the one source in the article is bad, but we can fix this. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it's probably for the best that this is getting a full AFD rather than being speedied, neither notability nor substantial coverage by reliable sources are up to article standards at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing the WP:RS to establish notability. Mostly social networks, directories, that sort of thing, and those don't do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't think there is much dispute that this content is unsuitable so no harm in going with the deletion but its not entirely clear whether/where to redirect or use a disambiguation. Neither outcome requires an admins tools so I'll just leave the space with explicit confirmation that any user can redirect/disambiguate as they see fit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrism[edit]

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

Unsuitable for the encyclopaedia, unsourced and reads like an essay JMHamo (talk) 18:04, 27 November 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 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article must be deleted then at least redirect to Geometry. IEdior (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: Iedior is a suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813.—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Geometrism' isn't mentioned in Geometry. It looks from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E6DD1F39EF3ABC4950DFB6678389639EDE that it did appear in the NYT, although how much used it's been since is another matter. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This started off as an obvious self-advert which included some background information - and an editor promptly came along and removed everything except the background information and what is now in the External Links section. However, while this has left a possibly improvable article on a probably notable artistic movement, we already have an article on it at Geometric abstraction, which seems to be a more common name for this (and a slightly better article). While I would be willing to see anything worthwhile from this article merged there, there are at most two items mentioned here that are not already mentioned in Geometric abstraction (Geometrism as an alternative name of the movement, and Naum Gabo as a relevant artist), and both would need confirmation from reliable sources before they could be added there. A redirect from this particular title is probably inappropriate, as "geometrism" has also been used (and apparently rather more often) to refer to several other movements (mathematical, philosophical and even other artistic ones). PWilkinson (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Geometric abstraction. The term "geometrism" isn't unknown and describes a real thing, so delete doesn't seem to be appropriate. De Guerre (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per PWilkinson's excellent analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Delete's too harsh for such a common term. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PWilkinson. A new article (or disambiguation page) might be written to discuss the uses of the term in art, mathematics, and philosophy. Norvoid (talk) 17:36, 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 redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. Doesn't seem to be a reason to delete before redirecting. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Moberg[edit]

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

Limited info on the subject with nothing of note beyond what is on the List_of_Swedish_supercentenarians Most of content is how this person succeed that person by not dying. WP:NOPAGE applies. This is a permastub. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians per WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a supercentrian is notable. well sourced.. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy on that? There is almost nothing here beyond the existence of the person Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that even matters. The question here is NOPAGE, not notability. EEng (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Kinda thinking that she belongs on the List_of_Swedish_supercentenarians and does not really need an article in its own right -- just that there isn't much to this story, other than she lived, really really long, then died. But there are a few references. I think this could go either way depending on how the closing admin interprets guidelines about this sort of article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT really isnt a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is ILIKEIT. Problem is: what is there in this article? Consider this sentence in the article (as of December 1 2015) -- At the age of 47, she began her married life with Ernst in a childless marriage that lasted 32 years until Ernst's death in 1968. How is that relevant? Does it have anything to do with her living to an old age? Isn't the only fact in this article that she lived much much longer than most people? So let's include that one piece of information on a list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Tom's Ulcer, we meet again, eh? EEng (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. EEngingstone, I presume?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Engslove EEng (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides the appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support a rather clear claim of notability in an article of appropriate size and scope rather in keeping with the typical size of our five million Wikipedia articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Size" isn't the question for NOPAGE; it's whether any of that size is made up of anything anyone wants to read. EEng (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes a rather claim of notability. The claim is backed up with multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to create an article of appropriate size and scope. The article would be even more substantial in the absence of removal of sourced content by those arguing for deletion of the article. The WP:NOPAGE / WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument has been addressed here and elsewhere; insisting that the deletion decision is based on the question if an article "is made up of anything anyone wants to read" is the clearest possible demonstration that IDONTLIKEIT is the only argument being offered. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether material is anything (any but a very few) readers would care to read is exactly the sort of editorial decision made thousands of times a day, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Despite your "addressing" the NOPAGE argument here and elsewhere, almost all these NOPAGE nominations are closing Merge, or Redirect. EEng (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians per WP:GNG/WP:NOPAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 December 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be notable other than her age which is covered already in List of Swedish supercentenarians. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is very well-sourced so erasing it would be rather strange. She was the oldest person ever from Sweden at one time, which clearly is notable. The anti-supercentenarian crew seems to be opposed to having an article for anyone that was featured several times in media because of their longevity. We have already have this debate one octillion times, and most people believe that you can be notable due to your longevity. Otherwise people such as Jeanne Calment or Sarah Knauss wouldn't have received the attention they got. 930310 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Yes the debates continue, but usually the answer is delete and redirect to a list. Legacypac (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it is the obvious choice for abandoned permastubs. Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. The article of Astrid Zachrison was (incorrectly) deleted, and the argument for keeping Zachrison's article was stronger. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:36, 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 delete. Anthonyhcole, if you want to keep working on this, let me (or any other admin) know; I'll be happy to restore this to draft space where it can be improved without any time pressure. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White House hospitality toward African Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article covers two slightly-related incidents, both of which have their own articles. The concept is far too broad to be of encyclopedic significance: how many times have the Obamas shown hospitality to African Americans? This was previously nominated shortly after creation, but was withdrawn when the article creator indicated his intent to expand the article. I checked with him recently, and he said he would not oppose deletion. St Anselm (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of the book The Black History of the White House, used as a reference, suggests the topic is notable for earlier American history. Numerous other presidents are mentioned but not covered in detail, but the article is surely capable of expansion. What policies is the article said to breach exactly? Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article appears to be a summary of two other articles so I cant see what value creating a wrapper around already existing material gives. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per MilborneOne. However, if the article is restructured shortly and gets expanded, we can discuss keeping the article. In its current form it is not worth keeping as a summary. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically about two incidents, both of which have their own articles. Not seeing any value here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat "What policies is the article said to breach exactly?" Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say notability - while the individual incidents may be notable, the topic as a whole does not seem to be. St Anselm (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, as I pointed out before, there is a book on it. Try again, please. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not a book on it. The Black History of the White House does not even have a chapter on the subject. Please look more carefully. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be silly. The subject is treated chronologically, and the few early examples appear within this framework. You still haven't come up with a relevant policy. It clearly isn't notability, as you are not claiming the articles on the two episodes treated here so far are not notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, MilborneOne, and Necrothesp. Redundant to have an article that is little more than a summary of two existing articles.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started this with the intention of turning it into a full treatment of the topic, beginning by merging two smaller articles I'd written ... Then never got back to it. It's a worthy topic and there are several good books, articles and chapters about it, so I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. Perhaps one day I'll turn my mind to it again - or someone else will - and add more of the dozens of other noteworthy cases. Both of the little articles this one is presently made from could and should be expanded considerably, and if this article is ever completed, its coverage of those two incidents will need to be reduced, per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, with links to their dedicated articles. So, I guess, eventually, when these three articles are all complete, the point of having three articles will be more apparent to the casual observer. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 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. Michig (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Millie's Fried Chicken[edit]

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

I am unable to find secondary sources (apart from adverts) to establish the notability required at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and GNG — Rod ^talk 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No established notability. --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 03:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.KFC copycat with 10 outlets. Szzuk (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply seeing nothing better for the listed notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN small local fast food chain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Grier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability seems uncertain. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to brother Nash or simply delete as News and Highbeam found several links but nothing solidly better yet. Notifying draft accepter C.Fred. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... I accepted the draft on the assumption (yeah, yeah, I know) that the Dancing with the Stars appearance would generate more coverage of it. It looks like it hasn't. I think SwisterTwister may have the right idea with a merge into his brother's article (Nash Grier). —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a 15-year-old who has a brother who is an "internet celebrity" and occasionally posts Vine videos. The only noteworthy thing he's done is make an appearance on a mildly popular TV show and go on a "Vine tour" as a sideshow. If this is someone worthy of a Wikipedia page, God save us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalloweenNight (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 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]

Keep His Dancing with the Stars stint (which, by the way, is hardly a mildly popular TV show, considering there were probably about 15 million viewers that season) did generate exposure in mainstream media, some of which I have added to the article. I also added mention of a publicity contract that he signed afterwards with Creative Artists Agency. This is more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Discant X 12:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge in to Nash Grier - He's basically known for Vines and appearing on some American dance contest ... that's it ... It's no different to someone in the UK making Vines and appearing on Strictly Come Dancing ..., Had the bloke done a little bit more and there been better sources I'd happily !vote Keep but as it stands he's a non notable bloke. Meh better merged than deleted I guess. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a brief mention - Bit confusing but I actually meant "Redirecting with a brief mention" above but realize now it's not obvious what I meant at all... So hopefully I've made my !vote less confusing! . –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Davey2010, Isn't a redirect with a brief mention basically a merge? Anyway, to be clear for the closing editor's sake, it seems you favor pointing this article to his brother's and making a mention of him somewhere in that article, no?

Personally, I think that if someone has had multiple publications dedicated to him personally, he becomes the subject of those articles, and any relation to his brother for the purposes of notability can be ignored. So are Hayes and Nash related? Yes. Are they separately notable? Also yes. If Hayes and Nash were not related, Hayes would still be deserving of an article here. His appearance on a prime time TV series and the subsequent media discussion about him is enough for him to be independently notable, regardless of who his brother is. Discant X 12:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason when I read it back it sounded confusing so figured I'd try & make it less confusing but I have a feeling I've done the exact opposite , I don't believe he's notable but we all have different opinions & all that –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A C-list celebrity, yes, but he still meets WP:BIO. Plus, the reason for the nomination is a little puny. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. He squeaks past the notability threshold - but squeak past, he does. GNG, BLP, they're met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or draft (if possible) - Agree with SwisterTwister. Redirect to brother Nash with brief info about this brother. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per SwisterTwister's rationale. Simply not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 December 2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' It's the Dancing with the Stars bit that makes this one a keep. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks secondary source coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 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 List of bus routes in London. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 403[edit]

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

Non notable bus route, fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. I'd originally redirected this to List of London bus routes but this was reverted claiming that it's notable purely because it dates back to 1924. I dispute this fact.

I'll happily admit that there are routes out there that are notable enough for inclusion, however this one isn't. Jeni ^(talk) 14:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom - Some London routes aren't notable and this is one of them, I say Delete & Redirect as I'm under the impression someone will probably revert and then never source it whereas if it's deleted and then redirected there'd be no reverts so thus no unsourced article. Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Fails WP:GNG. There is nothing special about this route, including its age.Charles (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What determines which route is notable and not notable enough for inclusion. I reverted the edit per WP:UKBRQDRIVE, Route has a significant history. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 08:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability determines which route is notable and not notable enough for inclusion. Do you care to explain what's significant about it's history? I've searched and I can't find anything significant about route 403 other than service changes. If you can give some sort of significant coverage, then I'll happily withdraw my nomination Jeni ^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:UKBRQDRIVE does not override Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it aims to build and clarify them. I know this because I was the one who set UKBRQDRIVE up! Jeni ^(talk) 09:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and searching for sources hasn't turned up any likely to make it. Markpackuk (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It beggars belief that a London bus route which existed for nearly 100 years would not be notable. I have no difficulty finding coverage in sources such as this. The worst case is that we'd merge into some more general page such as List of London bus routes and so, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By all means edit the article to establish notability, but existing for nearly 100 years does not on its own make it notable. Please show significant coverage as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Jeni ^(talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with Andrew Davidson Class455fan1 (talk to me) 10:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with someone won't save the article, It existing for over 100 years doesn't give it a free pass to an article, The bus route is non notable and serves better to everyone as a redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already found coverage in a book and will pop into the London Transport Museum to see what more they have. As for serving people better, that argument is not making any sense. The current page has good prose content about this history of the route while the list entry is so perfunctory that it is almost free of content. Andrew D. (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needing to go to a specialist museum to look for information rather confirms lack of the significant secondary coverage needed to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not our policy or practice. Much of our content is based upon specialist sources. For example, the 5 millionth article, Persoonia terminalis is only covered in specialist sources. Articles which Charles has created, such as George Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont or Tolson Museum, are based on obscure, specialist sources. The idea that we can't or shouldn't look in libraries or museums for supporting material seems quite contrary to our educational mission and would reduce the project to just pop cultural drivel and general news. Andrew D. (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't confirm notability or non-notability, suggestion that sources should be available online is Wikipedia:Recentism or other systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about needing to be available online or about not using libraries in general. The Wikipedian community deems some subjects, including major aristocrats and museums to be inherently notable. others such as primary schools, smaller shopping malls and ordinary bog standard bus routes are not generally considered notable. We are not supposed to do general news either.Charles (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the community does not recognise a concept of inherent notability for aristocrats or museums as I have seen examples of both nominated and deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of Wiki's greatest potentials is to create articles by bringing together information not readily accessible to the population at large. The suggestion that because this is held in a specialist library, the subject is not notable is silly. Some of the most valuable Wiki articles are those that have been written by editors conducting archival digs in all sorts of obscure places.

In terms of this article, the subject is notable enough, it’s just under referenced. This and other London route articles do suffer from having information that could be considered enthusiast orientated (bus fleet numbers etc) or travel guide like, (hours of operation, listing every stop etc), but this should not be a reason to delete the article. There are many published works on the historical element of these type of articles as witnessed by cites on other London bus route articles. Just a case of the right editors with access to these being attracted to the project.

These bus route articles are smaller parts of a bigger picture unlike say Worcestershire bus route 144 which has little interface with other articles. Their existence prevents the operator articles (e.g. Arriva London) being polluted with lists of contract changes (given they are re-tenderd every 5-7 years) as was previously happening, [32] routes tables [33] or lists of desintations (e.g. Clapham Junction railway station#Services) when a wikilink can substitute. 11Expo (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant secondary source coverage outside of local or niche sources. This has still not been demonstrated.Charles (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non-notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable, so we really need more than "Route 403 runs from here to there. It opened in 1924" which is about all I can see in the sources. Reyk _YO! 12:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a bus timetable. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see a strong case for deletion per WP:Outcomes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, did you read WP:OUTCOMES before you quoted it? This is a direct quote from that page: "Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable, recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common." Jeni ^(talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see alot of Keeps and alot of unrelated essays quoted but I don't see any sources that establish notability..... The WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITEXISTS !votes should probably be ignored... –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Longevity does not estabilish notability for a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL bus route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. While I agree with 11Expo's sentiment, policy and guidelines are relatively clear that the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Following the consensus established in WP:OUTCOMES, the redirect is the best option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) 09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect—as noted above, individual bus routes are typically not notable. They have an ephemeral nature compared to other transportation corridors, so unless WP:GNG-level sourcing is added, this one doesn't surpass the bar for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London as there is nothing exceptional about this particular route. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buscruft. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Seen one bus route, seen 'em all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 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 keep. This comes down to WP:LISTCRUFT vs. WP:GNG. Proponents of the keeping the article have provided several sources to their point, yet those citing LISTCRUFT (which should be noted is a mere essay) have little more than the link to the essay itself. Therefor, I believe that consensus exists to close this AfD as keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used in cricket[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-encyclopedic list which is really just a collection of names, with no encyclopedic value. It's listcruft, suffers from some recentism, and there's no evidence that a list of nicknames is actually notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG is satisfied, by Jiminy. BBC: "Do you know your cricket nicknames?", The Independent: "Cricket: Nicknames for the new era", even Bleacher Report: "Ranking the Top 30 Nicknames in Cricket History". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per not trivia. Nicknames can easily be mentioned in the main articles of teams/players, they do not require a list. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on that point. This could be said of almost any list. Tintin 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not trivia is inappropriate and irrelevant as it refers to sections in articles consisting of miscellaneous, unrelated items. What we have here is a separate list of related items; a quite different thing. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listcruft —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's another source: Wisden Dictionary of Cricket. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend's rationale and the additional source found by NA. This is also a list with a clear inclusion criteria, with the majority of the entries being sourced. Compare this with some articles in Category:Nicknames in sports, which are lacking in sources for the main. Everything on WP is triva/listcruft to the next person. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above demonstration of meeting GNG. Would like to see every line sourced, but it's pretty well referenced at the moment. Recentism is an issue but AFD isn't meant to be for cleanup. The advantage of this list, vs finding them in each and every article, is that it's a convenient place to search if you don't know who had a certain nickname. Should only list commonly used nicknames though, not every headline writer's one-off names. And our main online source of info, ESPNCricInfo, includes nicknames on their profile pages - ie Alfie/JL. The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikimandia - This sort of shite belongs on Wikia not here!, Obvious LISTCRUFT. –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from the creator of the sort of shite like List of Friday Download episodes.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts - Ah I walked straight in to that...., To be fair technically the only thing I did was move that from the main article to a new one[34] but point taken, I agree it is shite and if nominating it would make you feel better than be my guest!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I meant that in good humour (and I think it was taken that way!) In other words, one man's "sort of shite" is the next man's slaved over masterpiece that could one day get a GA or FA status. I've already put my case forward on why I think this AfD should end as keep, so I won't repeat that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha to be honest I did wonder if you were being serious but you are absolutely right there ... I should probably choose my words more wisely in future!

, Well I've struck the !vote before someone actually gets pissed off and no doubt takes me to ANI

. –Davey2010^Talk 14:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT SageGreenRider (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and so is worthless here. Andrew D. (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This discussion has clearly demonstrated that this topic has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:LISTN, e.g. Cricketing Nicknames. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and another whole article published today: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/950133.html The-Pope (talk) 23:44, 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. Already G11'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane Basmati Rice[edit]

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

Promotional topic The Avengers 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant spam. Norvoid (talk) 08:34, 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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terisa Greenan[edit]

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

Perhaps her web series is notable and deserves an article, but she does not. Almost all sources are about her web series, other sources I've read while searching the net only mention her tangentially. Lots of weird pagan sources were being used in an article, including one claiming she made a documentary about a certain Robert Clark Young. Brustopher (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article was created by indef banned editor Qworty, who is Robert Clark Young, as stated at this SPI page. She is not independently notable, merge to Family: the web series. Given Robert Clark Young's apparently history of socking, I'd say keep an eye out for new accounts at this Afd, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable or otherwise keepable, searches found links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but nothing compelling. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC. Sorry SwisterTwister, in my WP:BEFORE I find significant coverage of she and her work in the non-pagan Newsweek and Seattle Times and Komo News and ABC News, and WPTV and Slate Magazine and La Repubblica (Italian) and even Jezebel and Patheos to be compelling. Did you somehow not find them? And BTW... the author was not banned until 2 years after the article was created, so NOT being a new account, I will judge the topic through reasonable sourcability (none of it about Robert Clark Young) , and not by the author's later issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly one of your links is literally from something called The Pagan Channel[35], so please make sure to read more carefully before making broad statements like that. Secondly, as I noted in the nom almost all the sources you linked focus on Greenan in relation to her web series. The few others seem to mention her in passing. Hence why there is no independent notability, and it is the web series that is notable. None of these sources cover other aspects of her directing or acting career or anything like that. Brustopher (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... one was from The Pagan Channel... showing interest in her outside of the "usual" reliable sources for a fringe advocacy of hers. So what? Though you wish to dismiss them, I do not find she or her works being otherwise spoken of directly and in detail in non-pagan reliable sources such as Newsweek and Seattle Times and Komo News and ABC News, and WPTV and Slate Magazine and La Repubblica (Italian) to somehow not meet the instructions of WP:Basic toward "multiple" less-than-substantial. Still a keep in this admin's book. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:19, 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 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. IMDB only lists a couple vanity projects. Not known outside the web series, for now, so redirect. DreamGuy (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... not that WE care, but IMDB shows more than just "a couple vanity projects" and they lead to us to the coverage of she and her works in multiple reliable sources you seemed to have either ignored or not seen when offered above. WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). The articles in Newsweek, The Seattle Times, KOMO-TV, and ABC News provide substantial coverage of the subject. She is notable for being a "poly advocate".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Terisa Greenan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 08:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Schmidt demonstrated this person meeting GNG and BASIC beyond reasonable doubt, the rest is more or less a matter of cleanup. Cavarrone 11:47, 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Tajima[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. Since as few as 10% of people over 110 are identified, it is not credible to say this is the 4th oldest person in the world. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure if WP:BIO1E even applies here, or if it was intended for articles like this one. But even with that, there are 4 notabilities in the article, not just one. MarkYabloko 10:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to list of Japanese super-cents. EEng (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) [Later clarification]: ... per WP:NOPAGE.[reply]
Strong Keep She is one of slight survivors of born in the 19th century and one of oldest Japanese ever. She is still alive, there are possibility that become world's oldest person or oldest Japanese person ever in the near future. 4th oldest person out of 7.2 billion people is not notable? I don't think.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Japan's koseki family registry system is very thorough and has been for a long, long time. So even if the nominator's bold assertion that there could be another 30-40 undocumented people in the world that are older than her is true, we can still be quite certain that she is the oldest person in Japan. That alone is surely notable and has been addressed in multiple sources within the article. Because you need Koseki documents to do anything related to government services in the country, anybody older than her in Japan would have to have been living in a cave for the past 110+ years. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is pretty bad, there were over 200,000 deaths not reported for people listed as over 100, so that people could keep collecting the pensions of their parents. More than 230,000 Japanese people listed as 100 years old cannot be located and many may have died decades ago. Japan is listed as having the highest longevity, but this puts the number in doubt. In the US it is a crime to not report a death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is correct, but it does not change the fact that it is very thorough in regards to recording when people were born, which is the important part in the context of this discussion. By the way, the last paragraph of your source says that it does not put the longevity figures in doubt. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is remarkably clear. Sure, somebody may have run the 100m faster than Usain Bolt, and someone may have conceived of the Theory of Relativity before Albert Einstein, but being documented and covered in reliable and verifiable sources is what Wikipedia is all about; Woulda, coulda, mighta arguments about who the "real" oldest person may be are just irrelevant ponderings. The breadth and scope of the article provide appropriately significant coverage of the individual and the existence of five parallel articles in our partner projects in French, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and Finnish all demonstrate the international recognition she has received. What exactly is the BIO1E that she is famous for? When did that event occur? Alansohn (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not really sure what the deletion rational is, something like There are known knowns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long history of Japan and the country's long history of turning out old people, how can these claims be proven? "Tajima is the 5th oldest Japanese person ever, the 4th oldest Japanese woman ever and the longest lived person ever in Kyushu." Bolt's speed record is different - everyone is clear that this is for running in a modern competition. We don't say he is the fastest person ever. All you can say about this oldest person is that she is the oldest in Japan that has good records. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC) ""[reply]

We don't say he is the "fastest person ever"? Would you like to check the second sentence of the lead? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Usain Bolt article does say that. And I've tagged it ^{[citation needed]} since I don't see what in the article supports that claim, nor do I see what possible source ever could. It's an absurd statement, just as "oldest person in country X ever" is absurd. EEng (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng and company fail to understand the essence of the issue. We are not here to prove truth. We write articles and make assertions in them based on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources. The Guardian describes Bolt being "regarded as the fastest person ever", one of thousands of sources with similar characterizations available to source the statement. No one has run every individual on Earth against Bolt, and the word "ever" covers a very long period of time, with billions of the dearly departed who have never raced against the "fastest person ever". Bolt's achievements are based on the standards of the records and data available. So to for Tajima and the other individuals described as being among the world's oldest. We can safely disregard the chirping that there might be other people older (or faster or taller or whatever) than those cited as such in Wikipedia articles based on reliable and verifiable sources. It is the disregard for these reliably sourced characterizations that is absurd and in direct conflict with bedrock Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When The Guardian says he's the "fastest person ever", they know their readers will understand that to mean the fastest known person ever. Newspapers are allowed to take imprecise shortcuts like that. We're not. EEng (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's your job to decide what's the truth, and your decision is final. You've twisted causality here; That's not how Wikipedia works. We use material from reliable and verifiable sources, whether it be for Usain Bolt or Nabi Tajima or our other five million articles. Just as readers know what it means when Bolt is described as "fastest person ever", we all know what it means when someone is described as "oldest"; It's based on the data and records available as described in reliable and verifiable sources. Welcome to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we follow sources for the facts/assertions they report, we don't necessarily follow them in their form of expression. Thus while a newspaper might loosely say "X is the oldest person in Japan", knowing (or hoping) that readers will understand the imprecision in that statement, Wikipedia should be precise i.e should say, "X is reportedly the oldest person in Japan" or "X is the oldest known person in Japan". Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're agreeing. Assertions are based on characterizations in reliable and verifiable sources. If you want to tweak the wording for Nabi Tajima or for Usain Bolt, there's room for greater accuracy. I'm just glad that you're acknowledging that the argument that the person may not in fact be "oldest" is no more relevant than the claim that Bolt is not "fastest". I'm glad that we can now work together with that common understanding that such arguments for deletion as the ones used here are worthless. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nominator chose the strongest of the arguments available for deletion/merging. For me it's NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that other language Wikipedia choose to copy this is not an argument for keeping. That she might become the oldest person in the future is pure speculation. She is much more likely to die. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, that she has been recognized in reliable and verifiable sources as the "the oldest living person in Japan and the world's 4th oldest living person" is entirely accurate and constitutes a rather clear and strong claim of notability. Let's keep the article on that basis. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly" is a weasel word to avoid, it builds in skepticism, like it is a rumor. Using "verified" and "recorded" is proper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as various reliable sources indicate, she is a verified recordholder. We report what the sources say, and there have been plenty of coverage on her, thus making her notable. Vivexdino (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since she is still alive, I think that WP:NOPAGE considerations could be dealt with after she has died and the totality of the coverage is known. Although this is somewhat of a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument, the available sources appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:N, which means that it can be kept for the time being. Canadian Paul 18:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legacypac and others are on a crusade to delete all longevity-related articles due to warped logic that they are "only known for longevity". Well, Babe Ruth is only known for playing baseball, that's WP:BLPE, we better delete all sports players articles because they focus on sports! That's the kind of logic you're using. It's warped logic. If being 110+ wasn't notable, the oldest living person's death wouldn't be in the news as often. Koto Okubo was an exception - she was a very withdrawn woman who preferred to remain anonymous, and we knew very little of her. And I've noticed the nominator closing an AfD as Delete - that flat-out breaks the rules. You are not the one who decides what is notable and what is not. Nabi Tajima, being the oldest person in Japan, the oldest person ever from Kagoshima Prefecture (excluding Izumi and Hongo), the fourth-oldest living person, and one of the last four people born in the 19th century, is quite clearly notable. --158.222.69.9 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed an AfD before any substative involvement with longevity related articles. The Close survived a deletion review, and the deletion was based on Policy. Now that I read up on this topic I've foud a cleanup is needed. This 'oldest person here or there' stuff does not confer notability. Even advocates of tracking this supposed competition to live the longest admit that they don't have a good idea who all the contestants are. For example, there are some really old people in China but I don't see them on these lists very often, certianly not to the extent you would expect given the proportion of the population China represents. The general absence of Chinese people makes the whole exercise of picking the oldest person in the world highly suspect. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you EEng's clone? Firstly, "longevity does not confer notability" is YOUR OPINION. Outside sources tend to disagree. Secondly, there is no "competition", nor is anyone suggesting there is. Thirdly, if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that China has very poor levels of documentation (few people have birth certificates, etc), hence it's very difficult for Chinese longevity claimants' ages to be proven. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you EEng's clone?" I certainly hope he isn't, for his sake. But great minds do think alike, of course. EEng (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, I know a lot about China and existence or lack of documentation, which is why I point out that claims like "oldest person in Asia" or "4th oldest in the world" are most likely false and should not be made. I don't nominate or vote against notable people with more then trivial or routine coverage for something other then getting old. Legacypac (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no one is saying, definitively, that any given person is the Nth oldest person in the world, only that they're the oldest KNOWN AND VERIFIED person in the world. Secondly, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on outside sources, not the editor's opinions. If a reliable outside source ranks someone as the 4th oldest (verified) person, then there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't either. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:WHYN (see footnote 1). If a larger article provides better context and maintainability, it would be sensible to merge. Wikipedia is not limited by space, but it is limited by editing resources. The sources only cover the subject in the context of her old age (not even how she got to that age). Esquivalience ^t 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all the keep arguments above. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Weak leaning towards delete, but would prefer/support merge I spent a bit of time assessing (or at least trying to as I don't read Japanese well and am limited to reading the kanji) the sources that are in the stub. The NHK source doesn't work for me, not sure if that is a location related problem or if the link is dead. The IB Times source only has her as a passing mention in a table among other similarly aged ladies. The PDF source mentions her only in the wider context of Senior's day, so yet again another passing mention. The Nankainn source has slightly more detail going on to talk about her receiving a gift on Senior's day and a small blurb about her offspring. I'll reserve my opinion on the Guiness book of records entry as I'm not familiar with how Guiness as a source is assessed. She certainly does not satisfy, in my eyes, the significant coverage requirement, but the fact that she appeared in a number of publications does indicate there is a sufficient level of notability that information about Nabi-san should included somewhere but not as a standalone article. Blackmane (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - WP:NOPAGE applies here. What else can be said about her other than she's old (no disrespect intended at all, but, honestly, that's all she's notable for)? Assuming, for a minute, that notability isn't an issue, how does it better the encyclopedia to have a standalone article doomed to be stub for eternity when we can integrate the information into a more comprehensive article?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't "doomed to be a stub for eternity"... she is still living, she could go on to become the world's oldest person, Japan's oldest ever person, etc. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she becomes the world's oldest person, all that will mean is shifting her from one list to another, because NOPAGE will still apply (unless in the meantime she wins the Boston Marathon or a Nobel Prize, or stabs one of her caretakers or does something else worth knowing). EEng (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truly amazing how people that existed for over 100 years doing nothing worthy of being included in an encyclopedia (or the rest home newsletter) are all of a sudden considered notable by some editors while they languish in a care home, were most people are nearly totally forgotten. Apparently if someone(s) in another carehome on the other side of the world dies it makes this other person super-notable. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I think you'll find that the result of a number of recent AfD's for world's oldest person biographies show that consensus is in favour of such people having standalone articles in many cases. Legacypac, don't be so ridiculous. Clearly, the world's oldest person is notable for outliving BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, not just one person. Stop suggesting otherwise. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware of you being in charge of my suggestions. I'll consult you in advance next time. "Consensus is in favour of such people having standalone articles in many cases" -- yeah, if 13 keeps out of the 63 AfDs in recent months counts as "many". But hey -- who's keeping score, right? The NOPAGE argument is a powerful one, as almost all these people have led lives of exemplary dullness. EEng (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD'S OLDEST PERSON biographies. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about WOP bios. Can I be in charge of my own suggestions now? EEng (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC) EEng (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally talking about people who were the world's oldest person. And no, I'll tell you how to think ;) -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now -- the top-of-the-heap oldest oldest. I suspect that's because those discussions centered on notability rather than NOPAGE, and/or there tends to be more known/published about the top-of-the-heapers. It's certainly not simply because the subjects had that status, since simple longevity, even at the "true WOP" level, isn't a notability get-out-of-jail-free card. EEng (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Billions of people? Why mention that Person A outlived Person B at all then? According to people that track the keep breathing race they are only tracking maybe 10% of the super old. So claiming this women is the 4th oldest in the world is inaccurate - more likely, she is somewhere around 30-40th oldest. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to do original research. You might realize that "verified" and "recorded" are part of the concept. Before our sun exploded to make the current solar system from the detritus, there may have been billions of people that lived over the year 200. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The billions of people that live on Earth, obviously. That's why being the world's oldest is notable. Someone attains the distinction after someone else passes away, hence why you mention it. Do I really have to spell this out? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC

Keep. per other users.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)[reply]
Delete then redirect There is nothing here worth keeping. Fails Wikipedia rules about significant coverage. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. The only significant details are easily included on a list. That's the result counseled by WP:NOPAGE in cases like this. David in DC (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and Canadian Paul. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is that these are all getting merged. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim of notability is clear. The argument that only a percentage of people over 100 have been identified is moot as the article clearly states "verified living person." Also, if this is deleted, it will set prescent to delete the rest of stand alone articles links from here.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Oldest living person in Japan as well as one of only four verified living people left from the 19th century. The whole reason for nominating this article for deletion seems bogus. 930310 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. The entirety of what the article says about her is:

Nabi Tajima (born 4 August 1900) is a Japanese supercentenarian who is, at the age of 115 years, 124 days, the oldest verified living person in Japan. Tajima was born in Araki, an area of what was then Wan Village, in the westernmost part of Kikaijima Island, and currently resides in Kikai. As of September 2011, she had 9 children (7 sons and 2 daughters), 28 grandchildren, 56 great-grandchildren and 35 great-great-grandchildren. As of September 2015, she had over 140 descendants.

EEng (talk) 04:37, 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 : Nomination withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Maturity Model Integration[edit]

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

Series of essays / borderline promotional pages, almost entirely sourced to the materials from the project developers themselves. Also nominating CMMI Version 1.3 and Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity Strategy. (Note: I am not nominating the main article Capability Maturity Model. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capability Maturity Model Integration. The others were created (and recreated and recreated) by someone from the company involved starting in May based on a process developed by someone at that company. However the CMMI is a real entity. It is an extension of the work done at the Software Engineering Institute and Carnegie Mellon University on the CMM (software process improvement) to apply it to development processes in general. The article dates back to 2004 and filled out in 2006. There are books comparing it to other methods, such as Process Improvement Essentials: CMMI, Six Sigma, and ISO 9001 (2007) and CMMI and Six Sigma: Partners in Process Improvement (2008). CMMI also should not be merged with the article on CMM as has been suggested. The first should stay focused on software. Both CMM and CMMI could be turned into real encyclopedia articles with history, development, and the pros and cons that emerged during their application. (Warning, personal observation: Companies find many ways to appear to meet requirements without actually improving.) StarryGrandma (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capability Maturity Model Integration. I agree with the need to keep a version of this page. I'm interviewing for jobs that list "SEI-CMMI" as a responsibility and/or requirement of the job! As to the need for "CMM" vs "CMMI" pages here's current text from the "CMM" page: "The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple models for software development processes, thus the CMMI model has superseded the CMM model, though the CMM model continues to be a general theoretical process capability model used in the public domain.[citation needed]". My point being (assuming the text is accurate) that "CMMI" should be the "main page" if indeed it does "superseded the CMM model". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.104.201 (talk • contribs)
Due to the keep votes, I am splitting the nomination of CMMI Version 1.3 and Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity to a separate page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main CMMI article, which is notable per the links mentioned above, and also as a redirect target for one of its former co-nominated articles. I have commented separately on the two others now split out. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 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 Speedy Deleted (G12) by Ponyo.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tele 5 (Latvia)[edit]

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

Page content is almost the same as in Tele 5 (Poland). Can't find any evidance, that there is such station in Latvia. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Now, for WP:BCAST: "most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." - but there is no proof this one produces original content. I don't see any other exception. We have way too many unnotable TV/radio stations articles already, delete this and go after the Polish one next. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Svenja Kirschwasser[edit]

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

Suspected hoax article. Supposably won 1 WTA title and close to $1 million in prize money but I can not find any references to this player other than Wikipedia mirrors. Only article created by User:Stefanieee. Jevansen (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this person exists. I have to lean towards it being a hoax as well, given that there's zero sourcing out there for this person and none of the sources in the article actually back up her existence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the onus is on the article creator to prove that their subject exists. Esquivalience ^t 01:44, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saife Alami Bazza[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully-professional league or in senior international football, thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Insufficient independent in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boat drinks[edit]

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

There are no sources which determines the notability of "boat drinks" which appears to be just a list of cocktails. Which Hazel? (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Boat drinks" aren't really a thing, just a constructed concept inspired by a song title. Or something. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an article on cocktails and there are many articles on individual cocktails. There should be articles on a this fairly signifcant class of cocktails. Does the article need improvement? Yes, particularly the history section. The problem is that there only two sources, Sven Kirsten and Jeff Barry, with slightly contradictory takes on the subject. Kirsten's position is that boat drinks are the result of cheap post-war alcohol being masked with fruit juice. Barry, who interviewed a large number of mixologists and bar tender from the original bars, suggests that they were invented pre-war, as fairly high-end cocktails. Does the article need a name change? Possibly. As noted in the early part of the article there are a lot of synonyms. Renaming the article "tiki drinks" would probably be the best choice.

Excpet this article is almost entirely original research. FWIW I found this because I watched Things to do in Denver, and the boat drinks referenced there does not relate to the content of this article. This article is mostly shoehorned to fit a songs title. Even if it were to be de-buffeted, it's still rather lacking without sources. Perhaps you should move it to user space and fix it there first?Which Hazel? (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as original research. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-encyclopedic cross categorization. sst✈^(discuss) 07:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ginchev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, for reasons I don't entirely understand. The article is so similar to the deleted version that it was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation, because it was too similar to the version archived on deletionpedia. In any case, the concern of only technically meeting WP:NSPORT (only one brief appearance in A PFG) still applies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let me try to help. G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." In this case the additional references, in my judgement, meant that the page was not "substantially identical" so I declined the speedy. In these cases it is not part of the role of the assessing admin to evaluate additional sources in detail; since policy is that only obvious cases should be speedied then correct procedure is to decline and allow determination at AFD if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should have deletionpedia in its whitelist. But now the article has many references that show notability, so I suggest that we keep the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Graeme Bartlett as well as many football references online with material on him. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 02:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you to keep this page. It's a page about the Bulgarian professional footballer Stefan Ginchev who was not on Wikipedia yet. I believe that the article has many references that show notability and that this person deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightSong (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one appearance a few years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) before moving to a series of clubs in minor leagues is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu and Erand Rica, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage from what appear to be fairly reliable and national sources in Bulgaria. Seems to be notable for more than just that one pro appearance. Spiderone 09:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I'm prepared to apply the rationale of the football-specific notability guideline re presumption of notability equally to the Bulgarian top division and the English leagues, particularly as the subject is still young. But I'd like to comment on the sources currently in the article. They're probably all reliable, and some are national, but I'm surprised that people think they constitute enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for GNG:
- Refs 1 and 2 list his name as one of 25 regional winners (he won in Pavlikeni) in a national Children and Football programme; which is good, but it isn't the BFU young player of the year as claimed in the article;
- Ref 3 is a match report of an under-19 game in wich he scored a penalty; it doesn't verify his being the top goalscorer in the academy, as far as I can tell via Google translate;
- Refs 4–7 are all the same piece, more or less edited down, about several clubs being interested in taking Ginchev into their academies;
- Ref 8 is mostly a quote from Nike about their latest marketing exercise in Bulgaria, aiming to make young athletes look like stars; it verifies only that Ginchev is the first youngster to be equipped by Nike under that scheme, not the first Bulgarian athlete to be contracted to use their kit;
- Ref 9 is a namecheck in a routine squad list report.
If the article is kept, I'd suggest it gets trimmed to content actually verifiable from the cited sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 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.

[1] "TVShow Time, l'appli française qui change la façon de regarder les séries télé". Le Huffington Post. 15 July 2015.

[2] "TvShow Time: come Netflix, ma più economica e con i torrent". Wired. 25 November 2014.

[3] "TVShow Time Releases Sleek New App For Its Community Of TV Addicts". TechCrunch. AOL. 15 July 2015.

[4] "TVShow Time Lets You Stream All Your Favorite TV Shows Thanks To Put.io". TechCrunch. AOL. 3 March 2014.

[5] "Guernsey explorer sets sights on Kalahari desert". BBC News.

[6] "Guernsey man part of team breaking South Pole record". BBC News.

[7] "The ultimate winter car". Telegraph.co.uk. 4 November 2011.

[8] "Meet Jason De Carteret". mirror.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]