Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Connection[edit]

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

Article has had a notability tag for three years, with no sources added; all links in the article are dead, and the only search hit is a Facebook page Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a promo for an event from 3 years go. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for local community events and concerts. This was a one-off event which relied entirely on primary sources even when it was upcoming, it's been so little visited since then that 3.5 years later it's still written as if the event were still upcoming, and no reliable source coverage exists to salvage it with — so an advertisement for a non-notable local community event is about all this is or could ever be. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Bearcat that current content reads like out-dated advertisement. However googling "Texas Connection" "Red Deer" seems to have found it more than once on list of Alberta festivals and on non-primary sources like 2012 Red Deer Advocate and 2013 Innisfall Province. Canuckle (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, the article has for years been "within the scope of" WikiProject US/WikiProject Texas only, even though it's a festival in Alberta. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Canuckle: Your first link does mention the event, but seems to mostly be covering that particular artist. The second is a 404 error? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article he was trying to link to, and fixed the link — he accidentally left out a space between the end of the URL and the title he was trying to wrap over it. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not great sourcing, though. The Red Deer Advocate link just namechecks the existence of the festival in an article that isn't about the festival — and the Innisfail Province is a community weekly newspaper which would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the festival had already been daily-newspapered over GNG, but cannot carry GNG in and of itself if it's the best source you can come up with. So no, unfortunately those links haven't changed anything. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney_Derby_(AFL)[edit]

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

This page was deleted in January 2014 as an example of WP:TOOSOON, with no independent citations that verify that this is a notable rivalary. Over 3 months ago I made a request asking for comment about why the article was recreated, and had no responses. The article still has no citations that display any notability, it has no enduring historical significance, no widespread national or international impact, has no in-depth coverage beyond a typical AFL game and nothing exists that changes the admin decision to delete it. This article should be G4 speedy deleted, and salted to prevent recreation, as this article is a non-encyclopaedic, synthetic marketing gimmick. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "I want Sydney Derby to only mean an equally insignificant soccer game, and will continue to scream in that supermarket aisle until it happens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.209.71 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rivalry. The lack of significant coverage indicates a lack of notability. But the declining attendence figures say it best. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing's changed since the last AfD. Utter lack of significant coverage for the derby as a phenomenon unto itself. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:17, 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) 00:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Scurfield[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor-league hockey player with an undistinguished, brief career. Fails NHOCKEY, and the GNG as well -- all the sources in the article are either casual mentions which fail WP:ROUTINE, mere listing of a name, or do not mention the subject at all. One of many hundreds of NN sports stub articles created in defiance of notability guidelines by the infamous Dolovis. Ravenswing 03:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league player who doesn't rise to the level of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted (G7 One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) by RHaworth (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale Super League[edit]

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

Article has been deleted twice before. Recommend discussing its notability. Free Bullets (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An easy delete. Shouldn't this be a speedy deletion? Doesn't seem to be any claim to notability, and can't find any sources. Mattlore (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. And if it's been deleted multiple times before, recommend salting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 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) 00:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grouptrader Networks Limited[edit]

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

This is not a notable company and the article was previously speedily deleted under the name Grouptrader. The article has no reliable sources (just PRs and primary sources). I have searched for sources, and found only: local press, and trade press that sounds like an advertorial. Fences&Windows 20:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches also turned up nothing but that Brentwood Gazette/Essex Chronicle piece. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 11:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable as this company only started in 2012 and the sourcing is hardly convincing enough and lastly my searches only found a few passing mentions particularly at News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This company does not appear to be notable. I was unable to find any significant coverage being provided by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Edwardx (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Automotive[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All of these references are self-published, directory entries or trade organs. There is no independent third-party coverage to show that Spire is notable. The fact that they are large and successful does not necessarily make them notable. ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a car dealership. The references in the article are routine, including the appearance at no. 185 in a list of "leading private mid-market growth companies with biggest sales" [1]. Highbeam and Guardian searches return nothing, Google just routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just some press releases and a trade publication or two. All routine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Agrawal[edit]

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

COI article. Books seem to be on a vanity press (?). Wikipedia book search can't find any libraries with the books, unless I am doing something wrong. Tagged over a year. Source to Times of India is for a regional article of some sort, maybe reprintng a press release. Doesn't look notable enough for a mention anywhere without better sources, but certainly not its own page. DreamGuy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely regional coverage, no importance to world of literature, fails WP:NAUTHOR. -- Brianhe (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Youngest winner of national awards. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards seem non-notable, and subject does not meet WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently only has regional coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He might not be of importance to world literature but definitely a good contributor to Indian literature. He is an author of 2 national best seller books and youngest winner of national awards. He owns his own production house and has won multiple awards Krishna Modi (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Balachandran[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No claim of notability. Appears to be promotional and has unverified claims. Article was previously deleted on A7. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to meet WP:BASIC. He is an indian-born tycoon and a key player in UAE's business sector, Albawaba business news, Khaleej Times. The article needs improvement but is not a ground for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although Wikicology's sources are appreciable, my searches also found some at Books, News and Highbeam but they're all basically not significant and trivial therefore not much for a better article. Draft and userfy if needed though until this becomes better. Notifying taggers Xanthomelanoussprog and Norvoid. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that he's also an Executive Director of SB Global Educational Resources, which trains pilots and teachers in Kerala. He worked at Dunn and Bradstreet, acquired a builder's merchants and started supplying sites in Dubai at the height of a building boom, the merchants have become part of a larger group and he's remained as MD of the builders- at the same time he's involved in a training company in India. I suspect a lot of puffery… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - the Gulf News profile is from a high circulation daily, and the fridaymagazine.ae reference is also published by Gulf News, so he just about squeaks by on "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", and we'll likely find more. I do keep finding more bits of the article that are clearly pasted from different press releases though: if there are no WP:RS for those large, unreferenced sections by, say, a week from now, they should be removed. Reviewing editors might also be interested in the AFD for his company, WP:Articles for deletion/Buimerc Corporation. Norvoid (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neither he nor his company are notable. It can be difficult to judge the typical NE and SAsian conglomerates, and the only factor I trust is overall size: there are many much larger than his. I am not prepared to go very far in accepting the reliability for purposes of establishing notability in any source in that region--it's even more PR dominated than the US. Furthermore, the technique of writing about both a borderline notable firm and its borderline notable executive is promotional, and to be strongly discouraged. When they are both written by the same spa, I assume a conflict of interest, and a very likely violation of our <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> (and generally <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure>) The best course is such cases is to remove them until a npov editor appears. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically I agree with DGG. The type of sources listed here woulld fail at WP:CORP. Lists, PR repeats and directories are fine for garnering basic information but go nowhere towards notability. Citing the May 2, 2013 article in Gulf News by Zenifer Khaleel is appropriate, although a bit interviewy, but is not sufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to show WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mohamed Essa Eshaqi[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article consists of one sentence: "President of the Bahrain Handball Association". A handball association that has NO article in Wikipedia. Agree, no much notability in here. But what was the point of removing the speedy deletion tag, and then re-nominate the article, by the same user, for an AfD?, especially with no discussion attached? I think AfD nominations should be taken more seriously. ----MarkYabloko 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I PRODded it, and it was contested. Someone tagged it CSD A7, and I disagreed. As the PROD was contested, AfD was the only option. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could have been taken to BLP PROD. He "is" the president which clearly states that he is alive and not Ex-President or something. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:08, 1 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 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on living person will no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on this person; the article therefore fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography of a living person and no indicate of passing WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 16:32, 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. Sandstein 12:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Vashist[edit]

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

Non notable actor with no sources of verifiability plus only supported with a single IMDB link D'SuperHero (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article now has non-IMDb sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb certainly has nothing and although my searches found links at News, browsers and WP:INDAFD, there's nothing for immediate improvement and solid notability, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's received a fair bit of coverage in national dailies for a recent reality television appearance, and has had lead roles in several feature films. Norvoid (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actor seems to have been doing small time roles in big budget movies. Does not deserve a separate article. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has had significant roles in multiple notable films like Josh and Taal. Roles that are enough to have been mentioned on Bollywood Hungama (they don't list every cast member on their film pages). Also appeared as a contestant on the popular reality show Bigg Boss.116.119.128.28 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for exactly the reasons stated by 116.119.128.28, namely that the best sources are directories, that his claim to notability is based on a couple of smallish non-starring roles where he is actually mentioned in the cast, and that he was a contestant on a reality show, where he was eliminated in his first week. In Taal (1999) he played "Shaukat" who is not even mentioned in the extensive synopsis at Taal (film). In Josh (2000) he played Max's sidekick, and is listed last at Bollywood Hungama where they say he played "Ronnie", although Wikipedia at Josh (2000 film) it says he played "Michael", again not mentioned in the longish plot summary. His other roles were even smaller. [[Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:NOTEBLP, lack of significant coverage in multiple independt reliable sources. Sources are interviews and PR reprints. --Bejnar (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 G-20 Germany summit[edit]

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

I did not request this AfD but am opening this page for relevant discussion. Will the person who created this article and placed an AfD on it at the same time please explain his/her actions for doing so? Thanks. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 04:17, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the editor copied the AfD template from 2018 G-20 summit. I will copy my recommendation: Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't even know whether it will be called G20 at that time. —Kusma (t·c) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Host is known. Possible themes and participants are known. The similar situation as with 2026 FIFA World Cup or 2028 Summer Olympics. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 12:32, 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 03:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as to soon and not really needed yet, if you take out the speculative image fest all it says is it will be in Germany which is already mentioned in List of G-20 summits. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL, not enough solid information available about a future event. See also, MilborneOne's and Kusma's comments. In response to 178.94.166.186 the themes and actual participants are not known. Who is the next US president? --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Loufrani[edit]

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

This is mainly advertisement for Nicolas Loufrani and his Smiley Company, this article obviously doesn't follow WP:NPOV.
This article doesn't describe or explain anything about Nicolas Loufrani (except the very first sentence). Instead, this article is about the Smiley Company.
I doubt that Nicolas Loufrani is notable enough for an article. There is no reliable secondary literature about him. (Most references included in the article are mainly about the Smiley Company.)
This article was nominated for a deletion once, and the decision was delete. TheRandomIP (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a person he does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. If someone wants to write an article about the Smiley Company, they could modify this article to be about the company; however unless someone is willing now to undertake that conversion, it should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There may be a place for an article for the Smiley Company, but none of the existing sources satisfy the need for biographical coverage. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information would be more useful in the Smiley article rather than as its own, independent page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Smiley Company" and rewrite lead, for all of the reasons ably expressed above. Note "Smiley Company" currently redirects to "Nicolas Loufrani", it should be the other way around. Otherwise, delete Nicolas Loufrani as it fails WP:NOTEBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart as an article for the company as none of this suggests fully satisfying solid independent notability guidelines. Notifying the only still active AfD user Fences and windows. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Not sure why this wasn't speedily deleted back in 2011 with a direction to DRV when the same user recreated it, I missed the recreation. There is some more coverage of him now out there, but mainly puff pieces and lightweight interviews lacking biographical detail. I would turn it into an article about the company. Smiley World is now a redirect to Smiley and The Smiley Company to the younger Loufrani's bio. Fences&Windows 21:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Petra Stunt. joe decker ^talk 02:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Stunt[edit]

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

I've been cleaning up this article from this version but the more I look at the sources, the less convinced I've become that the subject meets WP:BIO. He was clearly not notable at the first AFD in 2007 and the second in 2011 closed as redirect to Petra Ecclestone per WP:NOTINHERITED. There has been further coverage since then, but the only substantial coverage has been in The Daily Mail [2] [3] [4] [5] which quite rightly is not an ideal source for BLPs and those sources contain almost zero encyclopedic information. They've repeatedly called him a billionaire, but I'm unable to find any mention of him in either the Forbes or Sunday Times rich lists and a (very short) FT blog called him a "reputed billionaire". If the Daily Mail can't check such a simple fact then there is little hope for the reliability of other information in the articles. I've searched in Factiva and google news but haven't turned up any other coverage about him other than brief snippets such as [6]. There were also mentions in relation to an art deal as well [7] [8] [9] but the subject of those is the painting rather than Stunt and none provide any biographical information. Apologies for the length of the nom, but unless there is something that I've missed I think that we should reinstate the redirect to Petra Ecclestone. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Maybe James Stunt did not have significant coverage in the previous two AFDs but now he has received substantial coverage in media, magazines, news, shows, photography etc. Maybe Forbes could not verify he was a billionaire but other sources like daily mail, FT and others have verified this fact. This article was copy edited by GOCE member Jonesey95 so there is no COI remaining in this article click here. References that were removed from this article were removed because they were not supporting wording they were with but they still did give coverage to James Stunt. This article should not be deleted because he has repetitive coverage in many credible sources. I'm completely disagree with SmartSE, i'v found some mentions about him 1 as long as i know therichest is a reliable source, 2. We can removce billionaire tittle, but we can't remove his deeds and Wikipedia page. BBC America wrote ; "Picture This: A Billionaire's Sacrifice Likely to Benefit Britain's Art Lovers" let's say BBC is not a reliable source. Was it a passing mention? . The Daily Telegraph published a news; "Van Dyck portrait saved for the nation". The New York Times says "Rejuvenating a Tepid Market for Old Masters : The buyer was identified by dealers as the British businessman James Stunt". James got lot of citations from DailyMail because he a british, it is natural, isn't it?. Also do check this log All public logs. Also check; American The Boston Globe says; British billionaire loaned paintings to MFA & Apollo (magazine); The collectors 40 under 40 USA and Electoral Commission (United Kingdom); Donations and loans received by political parties and non-party campaigners in the fifth pre-poll report at the General Election. Thanks! ---Khocon (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khocon: - I've already addressed most of those sources in the nomination and explained why I don't think that they are sufficient to establish notability. The Apollo magazine is the only new one, but once again the coverage is brief. You haven't explained why my line of reasoning is incorrect. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: - I hope, you will get better explanations from other volunteers. Let's see. It's not between you and me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 December 2015‎

Perhaps redirect again for now as all of these including the listed information as well is simply not enough for convincing solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on secondary references, this entry meets criteria.WikiWatcher987 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has previously attracted paid editors, most recently Skinssnapper (talk · contribs) who's since been blocked as a sock. Khocon discloses that they are a paid editor but has stated they are not being paid to edit this article. WikiWatcher987 is a brand new user who is almost exclusively interested in AFDs. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 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 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petra Ecclestone and create a new subsection in that article for the sourced content about the attempted art purchase and any other sourced information about James Stunt. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jonesey95: It's not fair, why should we create a section about James Stunts's art purchases details on his Wife's Wiki page?. Don't you think, James Stunt is notable? Khocon (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think he is notable on his own, according to the sources that we have been able to find. Of the sources in the current version in the article, they are either Daily Mail and OK!, which are paparazzi junk; articles about his wife; articles about an art purchase that he didn't make; web pages on sites that do not appear to be RS (e.g. Business Rich and Celebrity Family); and a driving.co.uk piece and an FT blog piece that are trivial mentions of his cars. All hat, no cattle. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply I can see, you withdrew your previous statement. You said; SmartSE has removed a number of sections of unverifiable prose, including statements about Stunt allegedly being a billionaire. He does not appear in the 2015 list of over 1,740 billionaires [http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/41/#version:static compiled by Forbes, which is a reliable source. I have completed my copy edit of this article. It does not appear to have any COI problems at this point. I'll wait for SmartSE to remove the COI tag. -Khocon (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amount of press coverage seems to convey notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - According to the statement of SmartSE. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - As per SmartSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone seems to be the best solution. The slimness of the coverage doesn't provide notability under our guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article as I saw it has no information other than his relationship with Petra and irrelevant things such as the car he travels in. There's nothing in there that shows notability. The Daily Mail will churn out a number of articles on anyone, especially someone who is married to the young blonde daughter of a billionaire. A previous version about his car number plates and philanthropic donations had nothing of note either, just a superfluous collection of statements. There's little info about his current company which may have been big enough to make him notable, but it seems his current status as entrepreneur falls short of requirements: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613504/His-Rollers-Armed-bodyguards-Wild-champagne-sprees-nightclubs-Why-Bernie-Ecclestone-thinks-billionaire-son-laws-flash-good.html Rayman60 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rayman60 is a fresh meat. I'm wondering why this article got "Keep" votes?. James Stunt clearly a notable subject for Wiki. Technically it's a 4th AFD, this article was restored per a consensus All public logs. My fellow volunteers are repeatedly voting Redirect to Petra Ecclestone without any discussion and research. Thanks for your efforts guys! -Khocon (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Khocon: By 'fresh meat' do you mean WP:MEAT? As in are you suggesting I requested Rayman60 !vote here? I can assure you that that is not the case and request you withdraw that allegation. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i did not mean WP:MEAT. I just wanted to say he is a new user. Just like you said before about WikiWatcher987.-Khocon (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New to this debate certainly, but perhaps not fresh in any other manner. I came to the article last night via http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-much-for-dinner-with-david-cameron-tories-reveal-list-of-mega-rich-donors-who-spend-50000-to-9858102.html#gallery independently and without coersion, suggestion or contact on or off wiki (noticed the tags so had a look under the hood and offered an opinion). Rayman60 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is clearly somebody who has fame through association and not in his own right,. I see zero notability here especially because notability is not inherited, in this case from his partner. Merge , if you must, with the article on his wife, but on the basis of the evidence to date, deletion seems to be the right choice. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on the deletion nomination, but I just thought I would mention I was canvassed here by Khocon [10]. I seem to be one of many users they've invited to participate. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone SmartSE sets out the case very well. James Stunt might be notable one day, but not at present. WP:NOTINHERITED. I've just checked my hard copy, and he is NOT on the 2015 Sunday Times Rich List of the 1000 wealthiest in the UK - those with £100 million or more. Edwardx (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect Nearly all coverage seems to be gossip-rag type stuff strongly tied to Petra Ecclestone and her family.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: although much of the content out there appears to be weak with gossip-related comments, there is quite a lot out there that indicates that he is notable to a large group of people globally. Although one can argue that some of the sources aren't reliable secondary sources, it would lead one to wonder why so many of them write articles about Mr. Stunt. Furthermore, according to WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." With that said, I suggest that we keep the article. By the way, I too was canvassed here by User:Khocon on my talk page. Hermera34 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - Although irrelevant to this discussion, I was also one of the many users canvassed by Khocon. I personally agree with the sound arguments to redirect to Petra Ecclestone. JQTriple7 ^talk 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - same as JQTriple and Ks0stm, I was canvassed by Khocon. I don't see anything in here which details why he's notable. He's a freakin' billionaire and the best you can do on how he got his money is one short sentence?!?? At least the article for Petra seems to have more heft (albeit not much more...). Redirect for now. Tabercil (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was also canvassed here by Khocon; therefore, I will not be opining in this discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was taklpage notified by Khocon. I've deliberately not read above to learn which way s/he leans. My immediate impression is "mild keep". Tony (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redriect to Petra Stunt, per Swister Twister. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how bad can it be if the 'article' isn't even capable of making you understand what this person should be known for, or what he does for a living. No encyclopedical value whatsoever. --Midas02 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celtic place names in Friuli-Venezia Giulia[edit]

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

Prodded, but prod removed without explanation or significant improvements. Reason for deletion:

A for 95% untranslated article made by an indef blocked user (blocks for copyvio and socking), since protected because of the socking. Better to just get rid of it and start afresh if and when wanted. Fram (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a collection of geographical dicdefs. I would propose transwikiing them over to Wiktionary, but they look like copyright violations to me. I note that the creating editor, who is also the primary contributor, is not just indefinitely blocked, he's indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations.

My reasoning is the same for this article, List of Celtic place names in Friuli-Venezia Giulia; the article List of Celtic Urban Toponymy in Italy, also up for AfD; and probably List of Celtic place names in Italy, although the latter is not up for deletion (yet). All of these look like they've been copied from somewhere without attribution. TJRC (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC asked me if I thought his reasoning here was sound. I do - I can't find a source for the content, but this user has a history of copy-pasting and translating without attribution. When I handled his original account, I thought this was simply a case of a user who for some inexplicable reason refused to follow the mandatory processes of WP:CWW, but while addressing his sock puppetry I realized that he was also translating directly from copyrighted Italian sources. It's not just the copyright of Wikimedians he was violating. I do not believe he composed this material, either. I think it's fair to speculate that in this case the source was Italian. It was not the Italian Wikipedia, but this text dump seems very likely to have been taken directly from his source and designed for later translation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 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 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the large number of incomplete citations in the text, that would appear to refer to an external listing (e.g. (P.-Y. Lambert) which probably refers to Lambert, Pierre-Yves, who wrote "La Langue Gauloise" Paris, Errance (1994), and other works on the Celts.), indicate "copying and pasting" as does the evidence enumerated above. The source is clearly Italian as the text changes to that language at the letter "N". I would delete as a WP:copyviol. --Bejnar (talk) 21:47, 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 Withdrawn by Nominator. Thank you SSTflyer for your expansion of the article. It is now clear that this topic meets WP:GNG and has indeed made an impression by now in spite of its age. Therefore, there is no point in keeping this debate going.(non-admin closure) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HP Stream 7[edit]

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

Is this a notable device compared to the Surface 3 - in other words, can we provide enough sources to justify WP:NOTABILITY conditions? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A year old machine and still no significant footprint. If it was going to make an impression, it would have done so by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few tech sites reviewed the device and gave it fairly positive reviews. The seems like enough of a footprint to me. PaperMarioGuy (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – obviously meets WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 07:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – one more review: NotebookCheck and a mention here: ZDNet. If you want I can 5x expand this article and nominate it for DYK. ssт✈^(discuss) 15:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, if you do that right away, I'll withdraw my nom (if I can) before the 7-day period ends. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sst✈^(discuss) 03:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the respective "... in Pakistan" articles.. Anything worthwhile can be merged from the history. Consensus is clearly not to retain these lists separately, but not quite clear to delete outright. Sandstein 12:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Karachi[edit]

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

Unsourced, WP:OR, and clearly intended to be a directory to further articles:

– all of whom have been created by the same editor WikiBulova (talk · contribs · count) by selective copy-paste from:

With the vast majority of Pakistani newspapers/magazines/TV channels having nationwide reach, these newly created Karachi lists repeat 70-80% of their source pages. Other than that, it is rather unclear to me why Media in Karachi was at all created in absence of sourced literature. Is it sort of promotion of the city, as the editor's edit history seem to suggest? Anyhow, I believe a deletion discussion is warranted. kashmiri ^TALK 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the above "x in Karachi" lists as unnecessary forks. The "x in Pakistan" pages simply aren't long enough to warrant splitting into per-city lists. (For the other articles I've WP:BOLDly added deletion tags pointing to this discussion. If the nominator disagrees, feel free to remove them.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If not "xyz in Karachi" then "xyz in Pakistan" lists are really encyclopedic. Instead of "xyz in Karachi" if they create "xyz in Sindh" which is a province in which Karachi situated, then province level and nation level lists of such stuff are encyclopedic. --Human3015^TALK 17:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed in general, but hope you agree having such lists on a city level would be an overkill. "List of TV channels in Multan", "List of newspapers in Bahawalpur"... Lists can sometimes come round handy but should never replace Categories. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bur Karachi is not a minor or small city. It can also deserve separate article for each stuff, it can be improved. Karachi is 2nd largest city in world. If you see List of countries and dependencies by population nearly 150 countries in the world have less population than Karachi city. Maybe "x in Multan", "y in Rahim Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Yar Khan" are non-notable but for Karachi it can be. Though I am not insisting for City level articles if not much info is available on them but Province level and Nation level can be kept for sure. --Human3015^TALK 19:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a city level list or article is not an issue per se. But it only makes sense if the main country list or article needs a WP:SIZESPLIT for the list. This may actually work for Media in Karachi. And I'll be ok with changing my !vote for that if it can be significantly improved with WP:RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Karachi with nearly 20 million multiethnic and multilingual population has huge media presence. What about the List of newspapers in London or List of New York City television and film studios ? Do we also have a discussion of deleting or meging all city level media lists ? All these city level lists can also be tagged for deletions. WikiBulova (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the size of the lists, not the size of the city, which is at issue here. Please don't tag other city-related lists for deletion in retaliation for this nomination. That would be viewed as further disruptive editing on your part. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (and not delete) to X in Pakistan lists respectively as the main lists are encyclopedic and Media in Karachi to Media of Pakistan. Simply redirect if there is no new content. Per Psychonaut, if a split is warranted due to length of the main lists, it can be done at that point. The titles are good candidates for redirects. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds sensible. As the nominator, I would like to support your suggestion if change of mind is allowed. kashmiri ^TALK 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork. There is no new content, and there is no need to shorten the Pakistan media lists. No redirects are needed, regardless of how cheap they are. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary content forks. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have added more information and references but since this Deletion request I have not added any more info. Kashmiri has also started to wiki stalk me and edited pages that I usually edit and marked pages I created for deletion. Now he is also being investigated for being a sockpuppet WikiBulova (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri had a malicious SPI opened against him by a chronic violator of the NPA policy all because he (Kashmiri) and another random user disagreed with the chronic violator. In addition, that SPI and the supposed Wikistalking you claim here (which is unsubstantiated as of now) are irrelevant to the AfD discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Hamilton[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Stub joke of an article tolerated long enough. Quis separabit? 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No individual presence of note in the team. No proof she is a WWE writer either, and so removed. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to lack of non-trivial coverage about this individual from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:04, 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 redirect to List of countries by level of military equipment. Consensus not to have a separate article. Verifiable content can be merged if there's consensus for it (and, yes, "verifiable" means "verifiable by the reader", i.e., "cites a reference"). Sandstein 12:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with warships[edit]

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

Content of article is already covered by List of countries by level of military equipment. Unnecessary to maintain two articles which cover the same topic.

Talk page discussion and support for deleting/merging this article located here. --Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You will notice this list includes different information, like tonnage and total number of vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will also notice these columns are unsourced. The article has been reliant on OR for the values in these columns as the few references in the article do not give total or tonnage figures. Considering I cannot find any reliable sources for tonnage or totals, and the article doesn't give any either, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Remember that everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. List of countries by level of military equipment already covers military vessels and is reliably sourced. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has to be verifiable. Not necessarily immediately verified. The question is whether this article is viable and useful and on a notable topic, not whether it is currently in a finished state. I think the answer to all these three things is yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you then, to find a reliable source for the tonnage column. Because if you cannot, just as I cannot, then how can that column ever be verifiable? And if that column is not verifiable, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. And without that column, this article is no more viable or notable than List of countries by level of military equipment.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 2:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Delete. This falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - virtually every country with a coast will have had a warship of some description at some time or another - and will have had some sort of navy as well, making this redundant to List of navies, which should be expanded instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per reasons I have already outlined. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking vote. As proposer, your support for deletion is already assumed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've tried to add this to what I think is the right section in Lists of ships. It may get some more eyeballs on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WP:SHIPS of this discussion in hopes of gaining further input. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 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 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of countries by level of military equipment. As a separate article, I think this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and it would be better to merge the additional information into the more comprehensive list that exists at list of countries by level of military equipment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of countries by level of military equipment. It is an indiscrimanent list and it does fail WP:Stand-alone lists. I was tempted to recommend deltion, but there is adequate coverage of warships at List of countries by level of military equipment. Merger of unsourced data does not seem appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON altogether. I have been unable to find a single reliable source that would discuss "Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzak Jilani". Google returns a mere 49 hits on "Abdul Razzaq Jilani" and "Abdul Razzaq Gillani", 90% of which are transclusions of Wikipedia and the rest are unrelated to the person. Upon close inspection, the long list of references under the article are either to blogs and discussion forums or to publications that do not mention the person at all – or to SELF-PUBLISHED books by a Pakistani religious leader which the article creator has been pushing into various Wikipedia articles for a couple of months now (WP:REFSPAM).

It appears that unless new reliable sources are found and prove otherwise, Abdul Razzak Jilani's only claim to notability is the fact of being a son and successor of Abdul Qadir Jilani. I suggest deletion. kashmiri ^TALK 18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:The criteria for deletion does not fit at all. According to WP:PERSON, "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice". The subject of the article is undoubtedly worthy of notice. Being the son as well as the successor of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani is not the only but surely the most significant aspect of his popularity because the contributions of the former saint were greater. If the sources did not discuss about the subject of the article, the article would never have been able to come into shape. The entire article has been extracted using the sources mentioned within the article otherwise having to write an entire biography and that too of a saint who belongs to the 12th century can be very challenging. This is true for editors like myself who have to get involved in extensive research for article creation. This is why a range of sources had to be read and researched upon most of which as authentic and WP:RS. Multiple independent sources have been combined to demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC for the article to exist per Wikipedia policies. Pixarh (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being merely the son of someone famous does not give one notability. Having significant coverage in independent reliable sources does, per WP:GNG. That said, there are enough reliable sources as I'll mention below in my vote argument. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to ~~the NPOV name Abd al-Razzaq al-Jilani~~ an NPOV name without honorifics. This is one of those cases where a standard transliteration of an Arabic name is indispensable. Known as Abd al-Razzaq b. Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani in the Encyclopedia of Islam, he has even got his own article there. I do agree though that the wiki-article is infested with unreliable sources (again by Najib-ur-Rehman and his personal "publishing company"?), but there's a handful of reliable ones in there too. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striked suggestion for new title. He was born and died in Baghdad and so it would be weird to call him Jilani. More like Abd al-Razzaq al-Baghdadi or we could follow the Encyclopedia of Islam and use Abd al-Razzaq ibn Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, since his father Abd al-Qadir really is from Gilan. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you so much for the information. Actually, Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani was born in the village of Gilan and/or Jilan belonging to Tabaristan, Iran-now a province Gilan. At the age of 12, he migrated from Jilan to Baghdad. Religious scholars use the name Jilani and not Gilani to refer to his name i.e. they use the sound 'J' (ج) and not 'G' (گ) because 'G'(گ) is one of those sounds not used in the entire Arabic language and most of the books of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani are in Arabic language. The Jilani family became a notable household in Baghdad due to his contributions in the mystic world of Islam. This is the reason why his son Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani, shared the same title of "Jilani" and popularly became known as Shaikh Syed Abdul Razzaq Jilani. Pixarh (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article with notable reference.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:17, 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 : 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 delete. Sandstein 12:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity[edit]

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

Essay / borderline promotional page, almost entirely sourced to the materials from the project developers themselves. Also nominating CMMI Version 1.3, for the same reason. (I have split the nomination of these two articles away from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capability Maturity Model Integration, due to keep votes.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity: The article is a mess, not just in formatting (excessive use of capitals, sometimes For Each Word In A Sentence), but also in the extent to which it is about CMM in general, general lines about as-is and to-be models, interwoven with general Gartner platitudes, stress on particular institutions and burnishing of registered marks which may or may not be relevant. In the absence of a clear running narrative thread, the best that can be applied is WP:TNT. There may be an article which can be constructed in future for "Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2)" in various fields ([11], – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), but better started afresh. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / Redirect CMMI Version 1.3 to Capability Maturity Model Integration: I don't see sufficient purpose for an article on v1.3 independent of the main article. AllyD (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There is no independent notability, and the topic is adequately covered in the CMM and CMMI articles. There is no need for a redirect for Version 1.3, as CMMI will come up first. --Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the background, you will understand how CMM for IT applications has evolved, to now include measurement of cybersecurity defenses. CMM Cybersecurity is using the CMM model as described to measure capability. The 'As Is' and 'To Be' method is how you measure capability in to the future by setting the 'To Be' goal. This is a standard method. The use of caps is to describe the letters that make up an acronym like CMM. Capability Maturity Model. (talk)Sean p connors (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arakh[edit]

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

The reason for deletion of this page is that it does not have any reliable source. The page says that a clan ruled at a particular region at some time. But who knows. There is not any official source to rely on. RobertGRAND (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage and hence for failing WP:GNG. I found them listed as a muslim caste/tribe in "Scheduling the OBCs Among the Muslims in Uttar Pradesh: Discrepancies and Irregularities" by Abdul Waheed, but no coverage. Waheed puts them in a list as a caste or tribe in the 1931 census of India. People of India: Maharashtra mentions them, in passing, as a sub-caste of the Pasi (p. 1684), and calls them "Arakh Pasi" (p. 1683). The Tribes and castes of the Central Provinces of India: Vol. II (1916) has a passing mention, but is not, now-a-days, considered a reliable source. After deletion, I would redirect the term to Eleazar ben Arach as the primary use seems to be to refer to his works. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case anyone thinks that a redirect to Pasi might be in order, People of India: Maharashtra is also not a reliable source. The People of India "states" series plagiarised Tribes and castes of the Central Provinces of India and other British Raj "ethnologies", often without attribution. While the "national" series, published by Oxford University Press, is considered to be ok, discussions at WP:RSN and other venues have come out against the "states" series for this reason. For those who do not understand the problems with Raj ethnic studies, WP:HISTRS, Census of India prior to independence, Sanskritisation and User:Sitush/CasteSources all provide background info of relevance. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this community apparently also refers to itself as the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I've not had time to search yet. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently also "Arkvanshi", but so far I found no reliable sources under any title. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article is fully protected because of persistent sock puppetry.--regentspark (comment) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've dug around but can find no reliable sources that discuss this group. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Him[edit]

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

Local politician, elected to a county board ~~for which there is no article yet~~; no indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Military record is commendable, but doesn't meet WP:MILPEOPLE. Proposed deletion contested by another editor with a new account. Norvoid (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTEBLP for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is a lack of in depth coverage. As the nominator noted, he also fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MILPEOPLE. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County board members can get over WP:NPOL #3 if they're sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it's not a level of office that confers an automatic presumption of notability just because the board member exists. But the sourcing here is far too dependent on primary and unreliable sources, with not nearly enough reliable source coverage shown to get over GNG, and nothing else here constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie either. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Halleran[edit]

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

I am proposing this page for deletion at the request of the subject, for privacy/safety concerns. According to WP:BIODEL, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also says "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

Under these two policy headings, I believe this is an appropriate request for deletion. If anyone feels that it's necessary to contact the subject of this page, I can put you in touch. Thank you. Bookgrrl (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems to be that the NOM has already stated on the talkpage that the subject is notable as per WP:NACADEMICS. On that, I think the NOM is clearly wrong and the subject is not notable (not a full Professor, does not have a lot of well-cited references etc). So leaving aside that claim, the question is whether he could be considered to be notable as per WP:GNG. It seems to me to be unlikely, and I can't find good secondary sources to indicate notability. So I think, particularly given the subject has asked for it to be deleted, there is good reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined this for speedy deletion because WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE only provides provisions for discussions to be closed as delete at the request of the article subject, not for speedy deletions under WP:CSD. That being said, I do think this individual does meet our notability guidelines but also falls under the category of "relatively unknown, non-public figures". Mkdw ^talk 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - On the edge of weak delete/keep, but WP:BIODEL pushes me to the delete side. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use some of the content to start an article about his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Freemasonry in the American Civil War, which looks like there may be notable. If that were the case, a redirect would be appropriate from the bio title, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong book. That was written by Steven Pinker. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. Updated the wikilink to use the whole title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BIODEL. No need to have a lasting judgment on Notability at this point. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:22, 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 merge to FIFA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Emergency Committee[edit]

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

Should be merged with FIFA, does not warrant its own article. JMHamo (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FIFA. The committee does not have independent notability, but it is an important part of the organization. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about FIFA uwanja^{Wanna Chat?} 16:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FIFA as WP:SNOW - this just doesn't pass WP:NOPAGE —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Committee has been responsible for many important decisions of FIFA. I added more than 20 decisions. Some of them are not mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Match2015 (talk) 15:49, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Kumar Prusty[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE: There are 6 references and a bibliography apart from a list of books published where his main area of expertise is not writing and WP:AUTHOR is not the only parameter to check. Secondly, him being an Odia-language researcher, majority of the publications and other work are all in Odia of which some are in Unicode and many are not. Many of the work are not available online which makes it even difficult to measure actual work done by this person. So I would recommend to keep the article and not delete rightayay. Rather, allow with some time to enhance it. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I seem to find was one trivial mention at Highbeam but certainly nothing compelling enough to keep. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is not much material here, but this is a quite difficult area for us in terms of cultural bias. I think it's fairly clear that he is an expert in his subject, and therefore meets the requirements of WP:PROF. I can't prove it, in the way I could prove someone in some other fields, but it seems very likely, and for this sort of subjects, that's enoguh. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello DGG, very kind of you to notice the concerns about cultural bias. I must clarify that the person in discussion is an Indian and so am I (the nominator of AfD). I would hence request you not to worry about the "bias" as I see none. Prusty does not have any notability (atleast not that I noticed). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural bias" as we use it does not mean bias of Wikipedians about people from a particular cultural area. (It's assumed we never see that here). It means rather the limitation of the sources available to us for people in a particular field from a particular region. Sources for Indian authors are relatively hard to come by for most of us, and even in India, they are not as reliable or as common as in the US or the UK. There is no union catalog of libraries; there is no periodical index of book reviews. Googles have limited coverage, even of English language publications. Many publishers are quite small, without extensive resources. It is therefore considerably harder to find sources of the same quality we would be able to for English language authors elsewhere. This is true even for works in English or the major Indians languages. It is all the more true for works in the relatively less prevalent Indian languages such as the one in which he specializes. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification DGG, I thought it otherwise. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:02, 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) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep -- sources are weak but as DGG notes, this is typical for Indian academics. There is enough sourcing for me to trust the claims of him being a significant academic with quality work. The article is written without puffery, so it seems to help the encyclopedia. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Michael Scott Cuthber. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody seems to explicitly oppose deletion. Sandstein 12:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than a few independent sources added. Possibly in wrong category or different stub should be used for such journals?Eplaner (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally, the links that you added are routinely removed from articles on academic journals, because they are all rather trivial. As far as I can see, some are to user-contributed databases, others are to not-very-selective databases (DOAJ, Croatian journal portal, etc) or to library catalogs (one -Western Theological Seminary- even simply stating that it is mirroring DOAJ). None of these links show in-depth coverage by an independent reliable source (necessary for GNG) or indexing in a selective database (needed for NJournals; note that not both GNG and NJournals need to be met, either one is sufficient). --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
INSPEC is still not selective enough database?Eplaner (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it were, I wouldn't have taken this to AfD. No, sorry, it's not a trivial database, but like DOAJ it is not selective enough for NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get some more time? I think I could find some better references.Eplaner (talk) 11:29, 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) 22:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that someone added that JSDEWES is on SCOPUS now...but with poor reference?Eplaner (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent journal list (linked on this page) lists a "Journal of Sustainable Development" as being discontinued, but it has a different ISSN. The journal being discussed here is not listed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does a number of citations in various scientific papers add up for notability in the field? Eplaner (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in Athletics. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in athletics records[edit]

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

These youth championship records are not a notable list subject, they don't get independent attention as a group (unlike the senior championship records) and are for the most part not really remarkable (the current list includes one national record, and that's it). While the championships and many of the winning athletes are or become notable, the best achievements on these championships are not. Fram (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is the very similar List of Central American Junior and Youth Championships in athletics records. Fram (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All the information is correct and suitable for inclusion in relation to the Central American Junior and Youth Championships in Athletics and Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in Athletics articles. Probably not enough coverage of the records themselves to warrant an independent article, but certainly worthy of inclusion at the main championships articles. SFB 20:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central American and Caribbean Junior Championships in Athletics as suggested by Sillyfolkboy. Sideways713 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canal 2 Cortazar[edit]

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

No meaningful content. Google turns up nothing. Corresponding Spanish Wikipedia article has been deleted several times. Nick Number (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a search for "Canal 2 Cortazar" (with quotes) shows basically no results. This would meet WP:A7 if it were web content, and only barely escapes WP:G1 and WP:A1. sst✈^(discuss) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to lack of comprehensible content as well as failing to meet general notability guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete More hoaxing garbage from Perezramirezm2 (talk · contribs), who is under a 1m block on ES.wiki and already had a few SD/AfD'ed articles due to hoaxing/incomprehensible writing. Time to give this user the same timeout they've gotten on ES here on EN because it's a simple case of 'taking my crayons to another wall because I can't use this one'. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flamboyant Bella[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Flamboyant bella

Articles for deletion/Flamboyant Bella (2nd nomination)

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

Deletion reason: Not notable. This group hasn't been signed; they've not really been active at all for at least 5 years as far as I can tell, with their Facebook page being mostly about one of the member's solo project. Their website no longer exists either. Stui (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked each of the provided references and they result in nil RS. The first afd brought up 3 web articles which give background to the group but they don't pass nmusic, they existed, did some gigs and then disappeared without doing anything of note. Szzuk (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the inclusion guidelines set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like before as it seems there's not even any better general notability and it was only known marginally and regionally, nothing else to suggest a better article here. Notifying past AfDers in case they're not aware of this new AfD: Black Kite, Duffbeerforme and Stifle. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as noted in the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Associates[edit]

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

The references are either listings, press releases, or both. The one in the Phoenix, for example, is clearly copied or paraphrased from a company press release. None of these are evidence of notability G news shows some of its own reports,and other notices. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found a few other things that are not on the page which might need to be considered: this article in Forbes, this one in the FT seems to rate their "US Private Equity index", and this one in Fortune. I think this shows a) that the main financial newspapers note what they produce and b) that they have some profile in those publications. On that basis I suspect that with further investigation, even better secondary sources will turn up. JMWt (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix does discuss Cambridge's role in the school's finances in some detail.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The search I've just done for notable references turns up, amongst others, Wall Street Journal [12], Huffington Post [13] and Financial Times [14]. Markpackuk (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayya Labib[edit]

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

Premature for inclusion. Fails WP:BEFORE as there is nothing at Google News or Books. Fails WP:GNG as there is virtually nothing significant written about her. Fails WP:NACTOR as there is no indication of multiple significant roles. There is only one role listed in her article for a film that may or may not have even started principal photography (Lakme (2016 film) is unsourced as of this writing) but even then, there is no "multiple" notable films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable and unacceptable article borderline with A7 and G11. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is recommended to DELETE this article as soon as possible. There is no evidence to demonstrate the notability of the topic. - 11sw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11sw4 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 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 merge to Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships in Athletics. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships in athletics records[edit]

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

The group of records is not notable enough for a stand-alone list. These are not the continental records for under-14s, these are the best times (distances, whatever) achieved at these championships only. The fact that all record holders are redlinks is indicative of the non-notability of these very specific records, even though some of them are bound to become notable athletes in later life. The lack of independent sources about the records (in the article, and as a group: a short mention of someone breaking a record is bound to have appeared once or twice in a newspaper somewhere) is an indication for the lack of notability. Fram (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a first AfD (keep) can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships records. Fram (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All the information is correct and suitable for inclusion in relation to the Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships in Athletics. Probably not enough coverage of the records themselves to warrant an independent article, but certainly worthy of inclusion at the main championships article. SFB 20:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships in Athletics. Sideways713 (talk) 20:48, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 by RHaworth. Party For Freedom (Australia) has also been speedily deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Freedom (Australia)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not a registered political party. But a fringe far right group. Getting in recent media coverage only because of court action against it LibStar (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Previously deleted after a unanimous AfD, so should be speedied instead. Split of a split of a split of a split, has been around for years and never gotten any notability beyond being a few dudes in a shed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an identical article can be found at Party For Freedom (Australia) (the for is capitalised). Seagull123 Φ 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Previous article was a copyvio but this however seems fine so closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickola Shreli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unfortunately the PROD was removed by Dream Focus so here we are at AfD and I'll say I confirm and echo what I said with my PROD "Searches found no better coverage aside from News and browsers and it obviously seems he is not a major or otherwise considerably notable actor with only background characters work. WP:TNT at best if a better article is ever available. NOTE: I would also likely disregard the AfD as it was closed immediately for speedy G12 and this current article was simply restarted within 24 hours." as there's simply nothing to suggest better notability and improvement.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I stated "current article was recreated after old one was wiped out for being a copyright violation, not because they weren't notable". So the fact it was deleted before is not relevant here. Splash section of the Chicago Sun Times interviewed him [15], as did Regard Magazine [16]. These are both mentioned in the article already along with others providing he passes the General Notability Guildlines. Dream Focus 09:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the article gets dropped, it will potentially be recreated soon. --Mondiad (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Dream Focus says, the prior AfD ended quickly on copyright grounds, not on the merits. Sufficient coverage (notably including the Sun-Times) is already present to demonstrate he passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 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. Consensus to keep following the relist. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 20:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craven Laboratories[edit]

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

I usually prod such articles, but this one is a bit different. There's a decent amount of coverage, but it's all one-event-ish: the company's fraud and conviction has received decent coverage (here's a 1991 NYT article [17]), and is still mentioned in passing. But that's it. I've not seen anything in-depth on the company to suggest it has stand alone notability. Through WP:CRIME applies to people, not companies, I think it logical to consider it: what is being discussed here is not the company, but the crime, hence WP:NCRIME is even more applicable. Still, per WP:NOTNEWS, and given that modern coverage is but a passing mention, I am not sure this could survive even if re-written as a crime article. And as this is really a tiny stub, I am leaning towards WP:NUKE - nothing to save here. Still, your opinions are much welcome: can we salvage this somehow? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This particular case, being the first of its kind, received a good deal of coverage, and therefore it is quite plausible that someone would come here looking for information. It would not fall under CRIME because of the public significance and the amount of citations. It does need completion: was the owner convicted? DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Redddbaron (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redddbaron: WP:NOREASON - if you cannot add a rationale, please don't add meaningless votes to AfD discussions. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about that, I thought it was self evident I was agreeing with DGG both in keeping and that it needs expanded. I do know a certain amount of info, but I haven't had time to make any changes. Quite frankly any attempts I have made to dig either end me up in an anti Monsanto propaganda blog, a pro Monsanto apologist page, the people of Anniston Alabama vs- Monsanto lawsuit or the earlier EPA USDA scandals. Seems it may take more time than I have available to wade through it all for encyclopedic quality sources. But certainly I think some editor with the time could and should improve it as opposed to deletion.Redddbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) ps If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, I haven't found any source, this used to be either the largest lab of this type in the country or the largest in the world. It would be nice if that line of investigation were pursued where it didn't necessarily involve Monsanto.Redddbaron (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG. Substantial continuing coverage. To answer the question above, the lab owner was sentenced to five years and a big fine in February 1994.[18] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This lab and the testing fraud it was involved in are historically notable, for one, as a significant story in the development and regulation of pesticides in the US. A 2001 EPA Laboratory Fraud Work Group report noted:

"There have been several instances of high profile cases of laboratory fraud which have had major impacts on the regulatory programs involved. Craven Laboratories and its president, Don Craven, were prosecuted for falsifying data used to support pesticide registrations. The company was fined $15.4 million and Don Craven was sentenced to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine."[19]

There is more reliably sourced material available, the article can be expanded. (I came to this article because Craven Labs is currently the subject of a content discussion at the Glyphosate article.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as given by others; basically a well documented event with singificant real-world consequences, the essence of the notability requirements. Geogene (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saipancakes[edit]

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

I've looked around for sources on this, and mostly I'm finding a couple paragraphs that introduce photo galleries, rather than in-depth articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 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 redirect to interventionism (politics). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention philosophy[edit]

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

Duplicate article for Interventionism (politics) Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (Speedy Redirect) to interventionism (politics) - no need for a duplicate article to go through AfD, and it's a reasonable search term — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to interventionism (politics) per Rhododendrites.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to interventionism (politics) per Rhododendrites. This article is a WP:CONTENTFORK. If the title were not a plausible redirect (and not created in 2005), then it may also be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A10. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Kohler[edit]

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

No evidence for notability apart from the village. Having an article like this serves no purpose except promotion. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user who has nominated the article has a history of nominating articles. To me, it seems he is having a contest to see how many articles he can have deleted. However, Destination Kohler is a division of the Kohler Company and is very notable for the fact that the Village of Kohler, Wisconsin contacts with Destination Kohler for tourism which is usually done in-house or by the county's Chamber of Commerce. Destination Kohler is unique in the sense in how it operates. Asher Heimermann (talk)

— Note to closing admin: Asher Heimermann (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kohler Company. It's already a section in that article. No reason to separate it out except for promotional purposes. And it's not clear that the website has anything to do with the village as the source for that assertion fails verification. 32.218.47.197 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Kohler is under the Village Tourism Committee. Destination Kohler is also Kohler Co.'s tourism promotion department. They apply for money from the Village tourism committee. Since the Village tourism committee gets most of its money from Kohler hotel room taxes, they give Destination Kohler money through their annual contract and agreement. Asher Heimermann (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research, as it's not found in the cited source. 32.218.47.197 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohler Interiors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too big of a list to merge into the Kohler Company article. Kohler Company is a large national corporation with a very diverse set of properties and divisions besides its mainstays - plumbing and engine divisions. See Template:Kohler Company to see how complicated it is. Many of their properties have their own article in Wikipedia. For example, five Kohler Company/Kohler Family sites are on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Plus they have Whistling Straits and Blackwolf Run golf courses, Kohler Stables, etc. A "list" style article to link together the destinations in this article and their many other properties/divisions would be too large. I think that this list is just the right size and the lists needs to be named how Kohler Company refers to them per WP:COMMONNAME. Royal broil 05:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Too big of a list" is not one of the criteria for notability. The size or structure of the company is also irrelevant. The question is whether this list (Destination Kohler) is notable. 32.218.45.64 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG as a list but not enough for some to have their own article. So a merged "list" of this format is the right fit. I was also commenting why I don't think it should be merged into the parent article - too big. There are many list articles on large companies holdings of small to medium sized companies. Royal broil 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per Royalbroil-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Karachi[edit]

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

Hello. I am recommending deletion of this list on the basis that the information presented is not reliable, and will most likely be near impossible to appropriately source in a manner which would be consistent with our encyclopedia.

There are 94 different buildings being compared in this list, almost all of which are without an article, and only two sources. Visiting those two sources, one goes to the Karachi Port Trust at http://www.kpt.gov.pk/ and provides no verifiable information at that link, and the second source [20] is a public notice PDF from the Sindh Building Control Authority, which actually contradicts the information presented where cited. The PDF source makes references to number of floors and sellable square footage for "Bahria Town Icon", and does not provide height values for KPT Twin Tower, does not confirm if the project is approved, and disagrees with the number of floors listed.

In other words, save for two inappropriately cited references which do nothing to validate any of the claims provided, this list is unsourced. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate better sources for this list but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is a recognized body which tracks this information in a uniform and consistent manner and appropriate sources can be located prior to the close of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For all its problems, the list doesn't have a single maintenance tag. We have such lists for pretty much every city in the world. My inclination would be to tag it and at least try to fix the problems, before trying to delete. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Shawn in Montreal for your comment. Other lists of this nature certainly do exist, but there are specific concerns here with this one in particular. How do you propose to resolve the issues of verifiability with List of tallest buildings in Karachi? Please feel free to notify and include any relevant discussion boards if you would like. If there is a standard body or authority for tracking this data I will assist with updating the references and withdraw this nomination. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea. But you could just tag the list or the problem entries for starters. WP:PERFECTION is not required. That's why God and Jimbo Wales (same thing) invented maintenance tags. And of course Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sorry that's my best advice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Shawn, I do understand your concerns and agree that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This article was nominated for deletion on the basis that the content is not verifiable in a manner congruent with our established policies and guidelines. I do not believe that it is possible to resolve these issues through the editing process, nor do I believe that there is anything in the way of salvageable content from the page history. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs more sourcing, but Karachi is easily a large enough city for this sort of list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The size or importance of Karachi is not being disputed here. The concern is that we as an encyclopedia are making various claims as to the height, number of floors, year construction started or completed (vague and unclear), and various other statistics on ninety four (94) different buildings without a single reliable source to stand on. While I agree with you that this certainly does need more sourcing, I do not believe that sources are available at this time to support such a list, hence this nomination. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of tallest buildings in Pakistan until more RS's are provided... they aren't easy to find online and in English. Siuenti (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 54 Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:NMEDIA. No particular cultural notability or influence. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy Ainsleigh[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable chiropractor. Most references are his own works. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable quack. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be mildly notable as a runner, but there aren't independent sources, so leaning delete. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as a chiropractor and all the statements about the run itself come from the run itself or from his writings so no notability there either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Glam Narayani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable event. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, Fails ONEEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Eteethan(talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) clpo13_(talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acute (medicine)[edit]

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

I think the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary was meant to cover things like this... Anyone agree? KDS4444^Talk 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as covered in multiple language articles, is well ref'd and goes well beyond a dictionary definition. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 01:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RichardWeiss. It might also function as an extended DAB page. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudnine Hospitals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only proponent of this article is the major contributor. Fails notability. Whilst I sympathise with the humanitarian aspect, I don't think the people who need to be reached will be looking at the english wiki site for guidance, and regardless, that's not the reason for this project. Rayman60 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom, moving the rationale from the previous AfD page. ansh 666 07:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a lot of discussion, so let's call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Hong Kong Student Association Singing Contest[edit]

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

I seriously doubts this meets the notability guidelines. A music competition that hasn't produced any notable winners, as far as I can tell. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor event with nothing to suggest it meets the guidelines for inclusion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:48, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Tunes[edit]

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

I turned down a CSD A7 for this group, and added a few cursory sources. However, I'm having difficulty finding any independent coverage of the band to write anything about them. There are passing mentions like this listing as part of a festival line-up, but that's about it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Jazz notified.
Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few of the currently listed links. Notifying jazz users Kudpung and AllyD in case they haven't seen the Project notification. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources. The best coverage they have received is compiled on their website, and none of it is from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 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) 01:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candy (magazine)[edit]

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

Seems like whoever wrote this may work or be a fan/supporter of the company. Information unsourced such as "the #1 teen magazine in the Philippines". I can't find much coverage about this magazine. Also don't really see why "The Candy Team" section is necessary. Andise1 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Have been unable to find anything to prove otherwise. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RWDM47[edit]

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

Non-notable football club JMHamo (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per evidence below. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per new research below, has played in the national cup, notable. Giant Snowman 22:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY by virtue of participating in the 2015–16 Belgian Cup, reaching the Fourth Round. Article needs improving, not deleting. Source: http://int.soccerway.com/national/belgium/beker-van-belgie/20152016/4th-round/r31977/ (club is marked as RWDM). YoungIreland (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in the 2015–16 Belgian Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:55, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tombola (bingo company)[edit]

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

Fails general and corporate notability. No considerable independent coverage by trusted publishers. Mainly maintained by one relatively inactive user, additionally suffers from lack of neutrality and overly promotional tone. Rayman60 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found: [21][22][23][24][25][26], Not all are perfect but notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Davey, there are sources to support some notability and even though it may seem overly promotional AfD is not for clean up work. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

York Place Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable article created by SPA, fails WP:ORGDEPTH -- samtar ^whisper 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensively fails WP:ORG. All the coverage is from listings on industry sites, blogs, etc. The only exceptions are two articles from the Newcastle Evening Chronicle and the Newcastle Journal which are virtually identical and published on the same day—a local interest story about one of the partners when she was still in college. Neither of them mention the business at all. I can find nothing better. The "awards" are utterly non-notable. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox . Note also that York Place Studios is a member of the 20Collective, an article by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm and deleted multiple times. Although created by an allegedly different user, he/she has the same modus operandi as the one who created Neil Palmer Photography (another non-notable member of the 20Collective). i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return a week later to turn it into an article [27], [28]. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sneaky on the redirect. Frankly, this article screams "local." There is nothing that shows this place to be notable as far as having coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A newspaper article, and a few blog posts and directory listings are not sufficient for establishing the notability of a company for purposes of having an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I agree with Voceditenore's assessment about paid editing. - Mr X 01:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is possible that there are 2 or 3 notable wedding photographers in the world. It is not possible that articles on 2 wedding photographers were created independently using the same bogus "redirect method". No indication of notability at all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as there's simply not enough better solid coverage for a better notable company article. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Palmer Photography[edit]

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

Non-notable article created by SPA, fails WP:ORGDEPTH -- samtar ^whisper 13:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches show zero independent coverage of this firm. The references are either connected to the subject or spurious, e.g.
- "By 1983 the business had flourished and had outgrown its premises" is referenced to "Meet The Cool Beans Designed To Beat Climate Change". NPR. which is literally about beans and where the only mention of Neil Palmer is in the photo credits
- "In 2010 with John retiring they changed the name from John Palmer Studio to Neil Palmer Photography." is referenced to "Les brèves de mars du détecteur de mensonges". Terra Eco. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) which is about the waste management company Veolia and where the only mention of Neil Palmer is in one photo credit.
- "Neil Palmer Photography is an established social photography studio in the South East of England." was referenced deliberately misleadingly as "Neil Palmer Photography". Bizjournals.com.. The actual name of the Bizjournals.com article was "WNY health pros support “achievable” goal of AIDS Task Force" not "Neil Palmer Photography" and Palmer's name appears only in one of the photo credits.
- "In 2014 he was appointed official documentary photographer to Royal Ascot." is referenced to "254,863 Flickr hits – Thank you!". CGIAR. which neglects to mention that Palmer himself is the author, and more importantly nowhere does the "article" mention that Palmer was appointed official documentary photographer to Royal Ascot.

This has all the earmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed complete with multiple perfectly formatted but deliberately misleading references, and a perfectly formatted infobox from the hands of a "new" editor who had previously made only the obligatory minor edits to get themselves autoconfirmed. They then got down to their "real work", creating this and another article for a non-notable company. Note also that Neil Palmer Photography is a member of the 20Collective, an article by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm and deleted multiple times. Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a run-of-the-mill photography studio, nothing to indicate notability (either in the article or found). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional, no clear evidence that there would be anything left to the article if the promotion were removed, and nothing is provided or found to suggest this is anything more than run of the mill.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many of the sources point to the official website which is not reliable for showing WP:GNG. I also could not find anything that would help show WP:CORPDEPTH to satisfy notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable independent sources and flatly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 01:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose there might be two or three notable wedding photographers in the world, but this business is not one of them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 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) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Welsh Isbell[edit]

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

Just not seeing any significant independent coverage, or anything that would help this subject meet a specific notability guideline. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not exactly sure what you mean by significant independent coverage. But by notability, are you saying the article does not refer to a notable person? Because I think it does. Also, as this is my first Wikipedia article, I would have been mindful of choosing a username. I created this account for the purpose of this article. Hence, the username. I am not Scott Isbell.Swisbell (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, notability is the Wikipedia concept of who we should cover with an encyclopedia article and who we shouldn't. One of the neat things is that notability isn't just left up to opinion; we have some guidelines that can help to make that call. The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is the easiest guideline to keep in mind, but there are also some specific guidelines for various types of people. WP:NMUSIC seems to apply in this case, but I can't determine how this subject would meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The reliable sources aren't there, nor do Google hits help. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:0:ABE6:78F9:225E:C72:122C (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources don't show notability per our guidelines at WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a heads up that I removed a lot of the article content because it was copied verbatim from the subject's website. I also removed a reference from The Atlantic because it discussed the ISIS attacks and made no reference to the subject. That material, of course, can be viewed by accessing the article's history. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)According to guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe subject satisfies notability with reference to points 1 and 5 under criterion for musicians and ensembles. Also, I believe the current state of the article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It is on this note that I plead for us to Keep article and work on it until it is worthy. I look forward to your response.Akinlosotu (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: criterion 1, I'm not sure that anything here really represents significant coverage. IMDB usually doesn't meet that standard, and neither would any of the content generated by Isbell or his associates (Talented Kids Depot, Niji Magazine, the Isbell website). Ralan Enterprises also seems to cover artists who solicit their coverage. School coverage (two of the sources) usually doesn't meet this criterion. The Boston Globe source seems promising, but it's very short and I think it's difficult to call that non-trivial. Re: criterion 5, the article doesn't suggest that Isbell has released two albums.

It's difficult to really compare this entry with those of other musicians, because we know there are other entries that also don't meet these notability criteria. The idea is that, as an encyclopedia, WP covers subjects that are already notable. It's just not the appropriate outlet for budding artists who are in need of help with SEO or PR in order to become notable. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I mis-cited criterion 5. I meant to cite criterion 4. <Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.> I believe this buttresses the Boston Globe source. Also, you mentioned before that there are certain guidelines for notability on WP, and cited references to buttress your point. Also, according to WP Guidelines, I wouldn't say the Boston Globe source is too short; it is a reliable source, and based on WP guidelines and guidelines at WP:MUSIC, I believe it passes this article for notability. Akinlosotu (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe source is not covering a national/international concert tour. It's very briefly covering Isbell's plans for his first festival performance. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the consensus that the subject neither meets the GNG nor the criteria of NMUSIC. While the Boston Globe article just barely is long enough to qualify as "significant coverage" of the subject, both the GNG and NMUSIC criterion #1 require multiple sources. The blizzard of primary webpages, blog posts, casual/fleeting mentions, user-inputted sources (such as IMDB) do not qualify, and none seem to be forthcoming. Ravenswing 05:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Smith (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA. Only one top tier fight and that was a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Second tier, or lower, titles mean nothing as far as notability is concerned. WP:GNG also doesn't appear to be met by videos, fight announcements, and routine results reporting. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level titles don't show notability, he lacks the significant independent coverage required by GNG, and lacks the top tier fights required by WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Language films[edit]

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

Absurd and may extend to infinity. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no single Indian language. We already have List of Assamese films, List of Bengali films, List of Kannada-language films, List of Malayalam films, List of Marathi films, List of Odia-language films, List of Rajasthani-language films, List of Tamil-language films, List of Telugu-language films, List of Tulu films and maybe List of Urdu-language films. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Clarityfiend; there is no value at all in duplicating many specific lists in one non-specific (and very large) list. We could of course make a List of Indian film lists - it would be similar to the list given by Clarityfiend - but that's another matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary list that could eventually include many, many thousands of titles. Best now and ever as the [Category:Indian films] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while whether it is necessary or not is a subjective view, and in this case a pretty invalid argument, Clarityfiend's analysis (echoed by the other two editors) is very cogent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to disambiguation page that links to List of Assamese films, List of Bengali films, List of Kannada-language films, List of Malayalam films, List of Marathi films, List of Odia-language films, List of Rajasthani-language films, List of Tamil-language films, List of Telugu-language films, List of Tulu films and List of Urdu-language films. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasaphone[edit]

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

Company that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are references but few that would be reliable or in depth enough to go towards notability. On a side note, I see the article Armchair Committee that is associated with Wasaphone was deleted as a sock of Orangemoody which could also be related to this one. CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I see no reason to keep this. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several of the references which are included are deadlinks or don't include the URL & having looked for them or other sources to show notability I am unable to find them.— Rod ^talk 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reliable sources are reviews about the product. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails WP:CORP. I could find nothing apart from the two brief product reviews already in the article. Note that refs 1 and 2 were deliberately misleading, making it look as if there were two reviews on each of those websites, when there was only one each. The remainder are either ads for the microphone or the company's own website. The one to Musicacristiana.biz, a defunct Spanish-language Christian music site(!) is almost certainly a fake. It has an access date of 12 April 2015, but that site was already defunct by December 2014 [29]. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted and highly misleading references and a perfectly formatted infobox. I concur with CNMall41 re the connection with the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm. The creator of this article also created York Place Studios a non-notable member of the 20Collective, another article created by Orangemoody et al. Although created by an allegedly different user to the editor who created Neil Palmer Photography (yet another non-notable member of the 20Collective), this article's creator has the same modus operandi, i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return later to turn it into an article [30], [31]. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Snow - As the nominator, and after reading through the comments and information associated with the related articles, I would support a snow delete. I am not sure what could possibly be brought forth in support of this article meeting notability guidelines at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it particularly annoying that the article was started as a redirect and then had the redirect replaced by almost the full text of the current article the next day by the same editor. This suggests bad faith and that the author was intentionally hiding the article creation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the redirect followed by full article ploy was a characteristic of the Orangemoody paid editors. Note that this article was marked as reviewed [32] by a now blocked Orangemoody sock [33]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matchless Magazine[edit]

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

I was actually adding my PROD: "The current existence for this is questionable as well as the listed website seems to be for something else and my searches simply found nothing to even suggest general notability and improvement." when I noticed Safiel's from when this started in July 2010....so here we are at AfD after my searches found nothing better at all and, as mentioned, the magazine's current existence is also questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EGADS!!! A blast from the past. And with the maintenance tags just as I left them five years ago. In any event, delete per nominator. Notability is dubious at best and nothing in the intervening five years comes even close to suggesting notability. Safiel (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA WP:COI article on an online magazine sourced only to itself and a blog, neither now accessible. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it exists but cannot find anything that makes it notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Webfmt[edit]

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

This was originally prodded in 2011 shortly after creation by User:AndrewWTaylor, and deprodde by creator with not much attention paid to this since. I think tjat the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement, and I am not seeing anything better in GNews/GBooks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no evidence of notability, or any independent references. (Thanks to Piotrus for bringing this back to my attention). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches noticeably found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear RAT[edit]

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

unreferenced software (trojan) article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up download sites and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage of this software. Dialectric (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's even hardly much here much less to suggest noticeably notability and improvement. Notifying past users Ched and JJMC89. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep It is a trojan, which by it's nature is not know by many people, only a few who created it, and the many who only know it as a virus. We don't really have a lot of these type of articles on Wikipedia, very few and in this instance, we really needed them. It's pure encyclopedia knowledge. I'll add a reference. scope_creep 11:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete No mention in Cert, McAfee or Symantec databases. scope_creep 12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping SwisterTwister. I don't have strong feelings either way. — Ched : ? 19:08, 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 delete. joe decker ^talk 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rj Sabeena Karki[edit]

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

Article about a radio personality in Nepal. Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. She has a large web presence, but I can't find any significant secondary coverage. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:BIO, no indications of being encyclopedic. Not all radio personalities are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Sandri[edit]

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

Article only sourced by an old school filmography (questionable reliable source on antoniogenna.net). No indication of notability or sources provided to show he is a major voice actor in the Italian voice acting world. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER and there seems to be a lot of false information on his article currently. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not to even suggest minimally general notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the long list of video game credits in the article, WP:VG's custom reliable source search only finds 5 hits, 1 from a directory and other 4 are Metacritic pages. No coverage, interviews, etc, were found. -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author requested deletion — foxj 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gas (painting)[edit]

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

No content Ueutyi (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, since this was blanked by the creator and only content contributor with an edit summary confirming the editor's intent to delete the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomico[edit]

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

Not listed in GamePlaza Haruka Voice Acting Database. Has a few singles that are Oricon charted but not very high. No distinction on what is notable about her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She did appear at Touhoucon 2015, which got some coverage. Is that enough to justify keeping her around? HERE AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps at best unless better including non-English coverage can be found as I'm simply not even solid general notability here. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Oricon, she has 6 singles that have charted.[34] This satisfies criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, which nowhere states that the recording has to chart above a certain number. I have seen quite a number of AfD where low ranking recordings have been sufficient to prove notability. Given that she had 3 singles in the top 100, including one at #41, I would say she easily satisfies criterion 2. Something extra is needed to conclusively prove notability, however. Michitaro (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of her notable singles is as a featured singer on Masayoshi Minoshima’s version of "Bad Apple!!", which is one of the top videos in the YouTube/Nico Nico world, [35][36] but unfortunately don't see it on Oricon. And Masayoshi Minoshima doesn't have an English article either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad Apple!!" redirects to Touhou Project, and is barely mentioned. I think an article or a section concerning that song need to be fleshed out first before crediting Nomico, and then she has to pass WP:BIO1E or her article would be redirected there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I am not comfortable leaving a BLP article with the holes present that need filling. I have no problem if someone finds the sources and works on the article so it passes notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A part of me wants this to be kept (despite neither being a fan of nor very familiar with the Touhou franchise), but a search reveals that the only hit that is close to being reliable coverage is the ANN link mentioned above. She indeed has had a few Oricon-charting singles, but even in Japanese coverage for her is sorely lacking; in fact, a search reveals several false positives for topics including what appears to be a Polish company. If she had some Japanese coverage I would have considered otherwise, but as it stands, she isn't notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 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. Consensus is overall to keep so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Schache[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in any senior competition and therefore doesn't meet notability criteria User:Melb vict (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable - may never play a senior game. Silent Billy (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. satisfies GNG, has had detailed stories written about him in major newspapers, not just routine bulk lists of potential draftees. He's a #2 draft selection, not a late round or rookie pick. Even if he never plays an AFL game, he'll be notable as being a #2 pick who never played a game. This isn't WP:FOOTY with it's strict WP:NFOOTY rules - necessary due to the fluid state of playing squads and infinite teams around the world. This is part of WP:AFL, only 18 teams, only 1 way to get onto a fixed 44 man squad. WP:NAFL is just a guideline. The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with The-Pope. The GNG trumps the subject-specific guidelines and Schache clearly has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some examples include:

This is just from the first page of a Google News search, there's plenty more. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The-Pope and Jenks24, also there are plenty of stories from independent sources about him, therefore, meets GNG. Flickerd (talk)
Delete citations only talk about him being the son of a notable person. Yet to become notable in his own right. Is mentioned in the article Laurence Schache, which should be sufficient at this point.Screech1616 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, a lot of the articles mention that he's the son of Laurence Schache, but some of them go into considerably more detail than that. I think this satisfies the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Middleton[edit]

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

This person seems to have been the victim of a tragic crime, but there's no evidence that either the crime or its victim is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. The media sources provided initially for the story are from NY Daily News, NBC News and The Daily Mail. Pretty sure that many other media also covered it as significant and notable. The court ruled for a record compensation for the victim's family. After request for deletion of article, Just to address colleague editor's reasoning that no indication that the crime or the victim are notable, I have added further stories run in the Houston Chronicle, The Daily Mirror, The Huffington Post and ABC News as well. All these are very big mainstream media not some local page. There are plenty more to add as sources if needed, but I believe the ones I have added would suffice to address the colleague's concerns. werldwayd (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources provides notability. article has improved since nom as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The crime may be notable. It should be clear that the person the crime was committed against is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already shown, extensively covered in major media. I can't see any benefit to the encyclopedia, or overarching values that would be served, by removing this content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bushell[edit]

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

Delete: no proof of notability given that article is almost entirely OR. Should be stricken. Quis separabit? 00:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable as a long-time national TV personality, and there's no shortage of coverage out there. A lot of the article is rubbish but that can be fixed by editing. --Michig (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Michig. There are extensive sources visible in the usual places to show that he's a significant national presence on the BBC. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:14, 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 redirect to Criminal possession of a weapon. Some content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon possession[edit]

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

We discovered this article in RfD when dealing with a group of strange redirects to it. This article is poorly put together and the topic is super broad. Weapons can range from brass knuckles to nuclear warheads. I can't see how this can be made into an article that matches the title. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...As I stated in RfD...The article is simply not notable. In fact, it is irrelevant and pointless. What's next? Articles on car possession, house possession, boat possession, pet possession? Save the hard-drive...delete.--RAF910 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Legacypac, do say that part of the reason for this AfD lies in the fact that it was de facto created by Neelix [37], who probably also created "appropriate" redirects. A bit of history: a page under this name has existed since 2005 or so, and was eventually moved to Criminal possession of a weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a RM. I do agree that it currently presents more or less a WP:DICDEF, and largely overlaps with Right to keep and bear arms, Gun control and Criminal possession of a weapon. However, we probably need an overview article for the broad weapon control topic (redlink!), for which Right to keep and bear arms seems the current best candidate, so I'd vote for a merge there (without prejudice on the best title). No such user (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good pickup - I had not looked at who created this junk. I was dealing with the useless redirects and this came up as something to send to AfD because it made no sense regardless of how one might try to improve it. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or change back to redirect - I wrote most of the text that was under this and now is under Criminal possession of a weapon. I felt the move to that new name was justified and did not notice when someone altered this redirect. This article is redundant with the aforementioned article, but far less informative and seems to have little merit.Legitimus (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable with Criminal possession of a weapon and delete the rest. As it exists now, this is nothing more than a WP:CONTENTFORK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Novara[edit]

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

Article only sourced by an old school filmography (questionable reliable source on antoniogenna.net) and a single article. So he voices Edward Elric in Italian. Why isn't there any meaningful coverage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TL22 (talk) 14:32, 25 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! 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough info to establish WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches clearly found no better coverage thus no signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Western clothing[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV. Lots of mentions from reliable sources, but they never go in depth about the topic. Unreferenced since March 2014. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The V&A are currently holding a major exhibition on Indian textiles including sections dedicated to modern clothing fusing Indian and Western fashion. I found this discussion of Indian-Western fashion connections in an academic book including references to the East-West synthesis. Here's another book on the subject of contemporary Indian fashion with lots of content on Western influences/cross referencing. Also, more discussion on the subject here. Yet more discussion in another academic book. The problem is that if you search for one very specific phrase, namely "Indo-Western clothing" you're not going to find an awful lot, as there are a lot of alternative terms for the concept, but in itself, it is very well-established and quite well-covered and clearly encyclopaedic enough to merit an article of its own. I actually think this article would be a perfect candidate for a student assignment. Mabalu (talk) 12:12, 24 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! 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if improved with material from reliable sources that establishes the notability of the topic.Borock (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current version doesn't have any references. Yann (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article also has potential. I'll pop by now and then to do a bit here and there. I've added a couple of refs. Others should add a bit in too. Good notable article potential and worth saving, but it needs work !!!!! Karl Twist (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mabalu's accurate analysis and sources. Cavarrone 11:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mabalu/systemic bias —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:42, 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.