Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 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 AFD IS LISTED AT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunjō no Tani (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the guidelines of Notability of Recordings nor does it show any indication of importance. QuartzReload (talk) 00:29, 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) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wellywoman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. An unsourced biography of a recently deceased local character. Claim that she was "an iconic character" among locals seems to rule out a Speedy A7. Article was redirected to the locality, but undone on basis that there is no mention of her in that article. A dump-and-run, single-edit article creation by an editor who was active for one day, never came back to the article and didn't respond to attempts to discuss it. No reliable sources have been found for this person (not even her actual name). The only coverage found has been in user-generated social media, and much of that was derogatory. Meters (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources and even if there were she wouldn't be notable. There's nothing to suggest that this person even existed. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The assertion that the subject was an iconic local character is not supported by any reliable sources. In fact, nothing in the article is supported by any sort of sourcing, nor could I find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources offered or to be found. There is a an apparently unrelated blog with the same name. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the gardening blog is someone else. Meters (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space Patrol Chronicles[edit]

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

This AfD is related to this AfD related to Warren Chaney. Long story short, this article is one of a few Chaney related articles that were created by SPAs. A look at the articles and its sources show the same issues as the America article. Very few of them can actually be verified and the ones that can be linked to show that they're pretty obviously unusable. What makes things worse is that many of the unverifiable sources claim to be published through outlets that have released work within at least the past 1-2 years, yet there's pretty much no record of these publications on the Internet. Now I will note that the publisher's website has images of the files, but I don't know that I can trust them given that there's pretty much zero record of these publications on the Internet. I have to assume that even if they do exist, the lack of information about them would make them unverifiable as far as editorial oversight goes and would thus make them unusable.

It also doesn't help that the article also relies quite heavily on sources that are primary in one way or another as in the case with the Swapsale links, which shows that the site sold these books at one point in time and the person who wrote the Swapsale review also knows Chaney. Furthermore, the article tries to claim that the sale page is actually a review for the books. On top of all of this, there are some links that are misrepresented as links that comment upon the book... but don't actually mention the book.

There are also links that are about the show as a whole. Notability is not inherited and as far as I can tell, these books are not official merchandise and I have to assume that this is someone's fanfiction. A look at the publisher shows that they only publish work by two authors, one of which is Chaney. Also interesting is that although the book page says that the publisher is located in London (per the infobox) the website says that it's American. I'm also uncertain as to whether or not Chaney is part of the publishing company or not. There's nothing to really back this up, but it's usually suspicious when a publisher only sells the work of 1-2 authors and is usually a sign that it was started by said individuals.

I've made a runthrough of the sources on the article's talk page and I'll post those here in a moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources. I left off the last few since they were already used above and it'd be somewhat redundant to repost them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Amazon. Merchant sources cannot show notability and are inappropriate to add to an article in general. Unusable
Chaney, Warren. Space Patrol – The Novel, Edge Publishing. This is, at best, a primary source and cannot show notability. Works do not gain notability by virtue of being published. Unusable
IMDb. This is a listing for the TV series itself. The series might be notable, but the books do not inherit notability. If this is an official work then it might warrant being listed on the series page, but books (official or no) do not automatically inherit notability. This is also ignoring the issues with IMDb as a source as a whole. Unusable
Radio Nouspace. This doesn't seem to actually mention the books at all and I also have to question whether the site would be a reliable source even if it did mention the books. Unusable
Chaney, Warren. Space Patrol Chronicles – Missions of Daring, Books One and Two. Same issues as the other listings of the book - unable to show notability.
Amazon. Same issues as above and is actually the same link. Unusable
Science Fiction & The Space Patrol Chronicles, RetroGuideBook Magazine. This might be usable, however I would need to verify that this actually covers the books in question and isn't just mentioning the show or isn't an advert. I also don't like that I really can't find anything about this magazine, which is problematic considering the issues at the other AfD. Unusable until it can be verified.
LA Times. This does not mention the books at all, so it cannot show notability for the works, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Unusable
NY Times. Same issue here. Unusable
Swapsale. This looks like the site was selling the book, which makes it a merchant source, which means it cannot be used to show notability. Unusable.
Pippin, Ed, Books One & Two, Space Patrol Chronicles, Solar Guard, May 6, 2014. This is another source that has no link posted for us to verify what type of article it was - or even if it was an article. Now the other issue is that we have to determine what type of publication Solar Guard is and whether it'd be a RS. I think that it might be this site, which doesn't seem to be usable because it has no actual editorial oversight as far as I can see. It also doesn't help that Chaney has written for the site, so even if it was potential a RS it would be unusable since it'd be in the site's best interests to promote the works of someone who writes for the. I also need to note that although the website is still up, there's no record of the review being written. Unusable
Swapsale. This is a review of the books, however the problem here is that since Swapsale was selling the books during this point in time it makes them a primary source a best. It's well within their best interests to write a review for the books - especially a positive one. It also doesn't help that the reviewer even states that they were sort of involved with the production of the books to some degree or at least knows Chaney. Unusable
Swapsale. This is the sale page, yet it's represented as a review. No sale page will ever be seen as a review of the work because there's an inherent COI, since they want you to spend your money. Unusable.
Pippen, Ed, Book Review-Space Patrol Chronicles, Solar Guard, May 20, 2014. This is another reference to the same review used above. Same issues apply. Unusable
Sanborne, Jeffrey, Book Review, Ravenwood Literary Digest, May 8, 2014, p.11. This is another unverifiable link and a search for "Ravenwood Literary Digest" brings up nothing to show that this even exists. A search for the writer's name brings up nothing as well. It's very suspicious that there's absolutely no trace of either the digest or the writer, as this was supposed to have been written so recently. Unusable until it can be proven legitimate.
Solar Guard. This is used in the reception section, however clicking on the link clearly shows that this is not a review for the book and instead covers Ed Kemmer. The book isn't even mentioned! Unusable
Swapsale. Same COI review, still unusable.
Macken, Jonathan B. The Science and the Fiction in The Space Patrol Chronicles, RetroGuideBook Magazine, April, 2015, p.97-99. This is another article by the same person for RetroGuideBook. The same issue applies: there's no record of this magazine at all. Given that this magazine is presumably still in publication, there should be record of it somewhere... and there's not any that I can find. Unusable until it can be proven legit.
Ames, Dale. Space Patrol Chronicles, The Galaxy Patrol, May 2014. Same issues here. This is presumably a magazine or website, however a search brings up nothing to show that it actually exists. Unusable until it can be proven legit.
Swapsale. Sale page, unusable
Bassior, Jean-Noel, Space Patrol: Missions of Daring in the Name of Early Television. This book pre-dates the publication of this book, so its unusable for notability giving purposes.
Terrace, Vincent. Crime Fighting Heroes, MacFarland & Company. Same issues, also unusable.
Radio Nouspace. This is the same source as above, same issues. Unusable

Note: I've opened up an AfD for another Chaney related article here, for Magic Mansion and the related list article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources can be trusted, even those on the publisher's website, which is registered to Steven Deyo, supposed Director of Public Relations at Adjei Productions, which links back to Chaney himself. This isn't a publisher with any kind of reputation at all, existing only as a front for the American: A Call for Greatness website (itself registered to someone at Chaney's company) and the Space Patrol books. As with the reviewers of that 'film', the images of reviews from other publications can't be verified. Nor even can their publishers' existence. Oh, and as for the "Remington-Collier, London" tag, there's no record of this publisher with Companies House either. Steve ^T • C 23:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solid work on finding the link to Chaney. I figured that this was the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability, as detailed by Tokyogirl79 and Steve. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another use of WikiP for WP:SELFPROMOTION by this group of SPA's. My thanks to everyone involved for your work in uncovering this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per an epic failure in sourcing as analyzed above. Even if there is some legitimacy to the topic, what is currently here is unusable and requires deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's on sale at Amazon, but there's no evidence that it ever received significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd agree with the prevailing opinion that it's best to TNT-delete these articles and start over from scratch once there are enough sources to potentially show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete. No notability and no reliable sources. Permstrump (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regenomics[edit]

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

WP:NEO issues. The purported sources do not support the topic. Actually most of them don't even mention the word. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism with no currency and not mentioned by the references - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The sources given look like a blog and a bunch of stuff which doesn't mention the article name. While you can find the term in scholarly papers, the papers don't give extensive coverage of the term itself, as far as I can see. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ahmed Yahya Al-Zahrani[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. The given sources are routine coverage of equally routine university board meetings that do not discuss Al-Zahrani in any detail. Google Scholar hits are scarce and mostly conference proceedings. Huon (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the very obvious votestacking (whether it's socking or meatpuppetry is irrelevant) this comes out to delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MovieJamStudios[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails to meet WP:ORG. Article is also poorly written and sounds more like an advertisement than a encyclopedia article. A7 and G11 speedy's have been removed by various people. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I was skeptical when I saw a company formed by five 15 year olds, but the references to articles in Bayerischer Rundfunk and Münchner Merkur satisfy GNG. —teb728 t c 19:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) On second thought, strip back and convert to an article about their film Olympia 72. It is the film which is notable—not the studio.[reply]

KEEP : Hi, my name is Alexander Spöri, I'm one of the founders of "MovieJam Studios. I don't see a problem with the article, is there one? So in case there is one, it would change the mistake or rewrite the paragraph. It was a lot of work to right it. Because we're speaking all german. So please keep calm. Would be nice, if you won't delete it! 91.63.238.198 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 91.63.238.198 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC) — 91.63.238.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Aspoeri2001: The main issue here is whether your studio is important enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Most companies are not that important, and as you know, your article was speedily deleted from German Wikipedia for just that reason. Another issue is that the article is not written from the neutral point of view which an encyclopedia requires. We are not asking you to rewrite it—indeed because of your conflict of interest on the subject you are strongly discouraged from creating and editing the article at all. —teb728 t c 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just added all citations 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — 2003:62:4328:A200:5DBD:1FE1:68C:33BC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and conflict of interest concerns. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : : I think the article is ordinary at this particular time, could stay in my opinion 84.168.71.153 (talk) 11:49 am, Today (UTC−7)

— 84.168.71.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

hilarious being ordinary is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : : That's right @84.168.71.153, could stay now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspoeri2001 (talk • contribs) 11:51 am, Today (UTC−7) Aspoeri2001 (talk) 11:59 am, Today (UTC−7)
Delete for now as the not even one year old age and the current list of sources is starters enough to show this company is not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is okay now, it's on Google Business as well. 84.168.92.66 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.168.92.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

being ok or on google business is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's on in Google Business listed now, so I think there are enough sources and citations. 8200882008a (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 8200882008a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@8200882008a: You reversed my !vote above: That is not acceptable. I have reverted your vandalism. —teb728 t c 13:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ are there enough sources etc. now? I think it does satisfy. Aspoeri2001 (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice and please stop swarming this page with multiple votes. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's very obvious all the new accounts voting here are all the same person or affiliated with the company. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Münchner Merkur, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Telefonica with the project Think Big, as well as 02 (Communications company), Rodney Sewell, Sebastian Wild, Google, Mathäser (Munich's most famous cinema), IMDb have approved this company and confirmed it on their websites, have written articles (everything is in the referneces on MovieJamStudios, as well as Google Business and Google News had approved everything. We could change the tone in the article, according to his subject, without Alexander Spöri, but I don't see your points and the problemes, I think it's fine? 84.168.92.66 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only refs that are worth anything are the BR and the Merkur. Facebook is not a reliable source. The think-big.org, muenchen72.com, and moviejam.de were written by you; so they are worthless for showing notability. And the sewell.de doesn’t even mention you. —teb728 t c 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Think-Big.org is a german site, written by Telefonica and 02. They were supporting us with Sponsoring and money, and we made some videos for them as well. It's not not write by us, it's the sponsoring company's site. At the end is written on german (down below), that they were our sponsors etc.

But this was an facebook post, by Rodney Sewell, which mentioned that he is mentoring us. Otherwise there is a source, where is written that we made a intership at Rodney Sewell Productions. Google is worthless? Google also inserted it a few days ago. Just google [MovieJamStudios]] on google.de, Adobe has written an user story about MovieJamStudios as well. 84.168.92.66 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

think-big.org may be owned by Telefonica, but the think-big.org page you cite is written in the first person; for example, “Wir sind Schülerinnen und Schüler des Lise-Meitner Gymnasiums” (“We are students of the Lise-Meitner Gymnasium”). So the page is written by you not by them.

As I said before, Wikipedia does not consider Facebook to be a reliable source. Likewise IMDb: being listed there means little more than that you exist.

You ask, “Google is worthless?” Yes, Absolutely for showing notability!!! Listing there means only that you are mentioned on the web: Places like the English Wikipedia page we are discussing or your webpages or your Facebook page. What is interesting on Google is that it doesn’t show you mentioned on German Wikipedia; dewiki must not think you are notable.

So that leaves us with only the BR and Merkur pages, and I seem to be the only Wikipedian here who is impressed even with them. —teb728 t c 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and the O2 and Telefonica article. The german Wikipedia article wasn't released by us and it was really really bad (more than our English one ;)) I don't see the problem. Everyone above has said, that the tone is more an advertisement, so let's change the whole tone!! But I think our company definitely shows notability? If you don't believe me, the BR and Merkur would be still enough? Could we find a solution, for both of us, change the tone, some paragraphs, etc.

OK? Would be very nice. These fake accounts, if they are some, these are definitely not from us, okay? 91.63.251.161 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and the think-big.org is NOT written by us, it's only an citation on the website from ours. But scroll down below the description, right? There is written that the Medienzentrum München and Telefonica and O2 were our sponsors, partners, and we made some videos for them. There is also the reference for Germany's best youth movie written, just read it... 91.63.251.161 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF that's written there, I would say we could find a solution, if we change the article's tone? What do you think @teb728 ?2003:62:4348:F700:418B:F6A9:1565:26AB (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2003:62:4348:F700:418B:F6A9:1565:26AB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. All of the COI on this AFD page doesn't really help, either. If it's really notable, it needs to be rewritten by someone without a COI anyway. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability, and all of the COI is dreadful. The puppetry of both sorts on this AfD is overwhelming, and proves the issues with COI. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and Kharkiv07 is spot on about the COI. MarnetteD|Talk 00:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

America: A Call to Greatness[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMNOT for lack of independent reliable coverage. As written, the article has dubious promotional text with circular or self-published sourcing which places it on the border of a WP:HOAX. (For example, the article quotes from the website a 2010 review in Screen Times Magazine, for which I find no existence, by a writer named Winston J. Aaronson, whose only hit on google is uploading Warren Chaney books to Open Library.) The article appears to be part of a longterm agenda by SPA editors to create a hagiography and walled garden for Warren Chaney. Although some production appears to exist in some form, so much of the article may be fraudulent, that I recommend it can only be corrected (if ever) from scratch. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX due to lack of verifiability of this topic from reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. also agree with the nom about the hagiography aspect of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any details on this film in reliable sources. I checked the American Film Institute, British Film Institute, Variety, Allmovie, The New York Times, and pretty much every other reliable film database that I could think of. Yes, it's possible for a film to escape notice, but even a low budget exploitation like Ninja Apocalypse leaves behind a trail of evidence that it existed. The one hit that I did find, this article in what looks like a local newspaper or newsletter, is a mere trivial mention. If this film does exist, then it's going to need to demonstrate notability and verifiability much better than the current article does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the same dead ends as NinjaRobotPirate in trying to find a reliable source to verify the existence of this film and I'd like to note that while small, low budget films might fall through the cracks, there's absolutely no way that a movie would go unnoticed if it had the cast that this movie claims: Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Autry, Rita Moreno, etc. Permstrump (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are a mass of SPAs editing on Chaney related articles I'd highly, highly recommend that you open an SPI to see if there's any socking or meating going on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusWriter: Have you looked at the other pages for this guy? If this article is like this then it's extremely likely that the other articles will have the same issue, including Chaney's page itself. He may be notable, but at this point I think that it needs to be seriously investigated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, join the discussion here. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're awesome, Eric. On a side note, I'm about to nominate the guy's book series for deletion - none of the sources seem to check out as usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in, Tokyogirl79. Erik pointed you to the linked discussion, so you can see that this AFD is just the start of the clean up. An SPI will be in progress soon. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like we've got a weird one here. Just for fun I started looking up some other things in Chaney's "Superb Speakers" profile.
First thing checked: Using Neuroplasticity to Achieve Cognitive Change, Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Journal of Applied Cognitive-Behavioral Science, Volume 5, 1st Quarter, 2009, pp. 132-145.
Google doesn't know anything about the title or the journal

Second thing checked: The Right Stuff - What is It? Warren H. Chaney, Ph.D., Your New Mind, (On Line Journal), 1st Quarter, 2008.
"Your New Mind" took some searching, but I found it! Behold a .blogspot blog with two posts, one of which is Chaney's -- basically an ad for Mind Dynamics’ Workshops.

Yikes — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence from a reliable source to suggest this even exists; none of the sources check out as reliable (the movie's website is registered to Carrie Sheldon of the Mind Technologies Institute in TX, at which Chaney was supposedly CEO until 2012) I think we're about to find that almost every word written about Chaney and his supposed films is one of the knottiest hoaxes we've ever encountered (another fun fact: Chaney's 'publisher' Remington-Collier London (which doesn't have an entry at Companies House) has a website registered to Steven Deyo, supposed Director of Public Relations at Adjei Productions, which links back to Chaney himself. This is going to take some time to unravel). Steve ^T • C 22:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the name Adjei from another active AfD for the book Dynamic Mind by Warren Chaney. Someone with the last name Adjei wrote an article for a school newspaper that was cited on the page for Dynamic Mind. I did find the actual article online and it did have something to do with Chaney and his theories, but of course it didn't once mention Dynamic Mind. I imagine he named the production company after a relative or something. That also explains the mystery as to why the heck someone wrote an article about him for a school newspaper. Permstrump (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I found little to back up the claims and I also have to note that some of the sources weren't even what they claimed to be. One of the sources claims to be Box Office Mojo, but links to IMDb. There seems to be some pretty clear deception going on here, so unless we can verify any and all sources 100% I have to assume that anything we cannot see and research has to be false. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I've opened an AfD for his book series here. That article has many, MANY issues similar to this one, including some blatant misrepresentation of sources and several publications that do not seem to exist when you search for their titles, giving off the impression that they either don't exist or they wouldn't be usable as a source even if they were legit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above. Wow. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrodbeck, how many more years do you think it would have been before this was discovered if you hadn't made the AfD for Dynamic Mind? Permstrump (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've opened up an AfD for another Chaney related article here, for Magic Mansion and the related list article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:HOAX and violates WP:BLP. This article claims to be about a “docudrama” with an ensemble cast of well-known celebrities. Celebrities listed in the cast include: Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Autry, Rita Moreno, and a plethora of other living or recently deceased persons. However, I haven’t been able to find a single reliable source that independently corroborates that any of the celebrities listed in the cast were ever in a film by this name. There are currently 28 [mostly] legitimate BLPs that backlink to this one in references to major actors’ supposed role in this film. When the page was first created in 2011, concerns were raised on its talk page about the lack of neutrality and lack of reliable sources, but those comments were deleted several months later by an SPA dedicated to editing articles related to Warren Chaney. Permstrump (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. While I cannot really doubt the participation of certain senior notables after seeing them in the film trailer with my own eyes, their taking part was likely encouraged by their being personally quite patriotic. So what? A collection of to-camera sound-bytes, interspersed with stock footage film clips, images, music and patriotic rhetoric is not inherently notable, though a mention in other articles of someone being in a non-notable film project is fine enough IF they can be seen in that project. One can only speculate why their participation caught no media, but in lacking coverage notability is failed. I laughed when i saw the same actor playing both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. And while it "may" actually exist, it has made no lasting mark. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went at this from the other direction - the claim about Gene Autry and a new recording of America the Beautiful being released circa 1995 - the music folks are pretty thorough, and I found no such new recording at all. Result - delete. And suggest deletion of all connections made in other Wikipedia articles. The film qua film fails notability. Collect (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I checked 8 refs and deleted them all. Two were IMDB (not reliable), and the other six all failed Verification. I did significant internet searching and I found squat. Everything about this article raises WP:REDFLAG. The article is almost entirely unsourced, it claims an EXTRAORDINARY range of starring roles which have somehow attracted zero mention in independent sources, and the article-creator has been blocked. The trailer with Charlton Heston and others seems to indicate *something* exists, but this article requires application of WP:DYNAMITE. If a well established and responsible editor finds proper independent sourcing, I endorse giving them access to the deleted copy to mine for anything usable. Alsee (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remember running into Chaney/Magic Mansion/etc on Wikipedia a couple of years ago (just looked it up and it seems to have been in 2011) and thinking that the whole thing didn't quite pass the smell test but couldn't put my finger on exactly *why*... (Btw, Chaney is married to Deborah Winters, an actress of somewhat dubious notability.) The "documentary" (or whatever it is) seems to have been broadcast only once (if at all) - not every TV show or special or commercial that aired on American television is notable.

Now, this is where it gets interesting...I think that this "film" is probably a promo piece for a book by John W Chalfant, a book that was apparently originally published in 1996. If you go to Page ii at America-A Call to Greatness Google Book link you can see the various copyright dates. The website 'www.greatness.com" now belongs to a different entity but Chalfant now has a website of "greatness.us" where you can see all his views. Xulon Press, the publisher of "American: A Call..." is a Christian/on-demand self-publishing company.Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I had found the book but couldn't make any connection other than the title. All my searches for the publisher and author and figures involved with the film (Charlton Heston, Warren Chaney, Mickey Rooney, Paige-Brace, Millennial Entertainment, etc.) turned up nothing. Have you seen anything else other than the timing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be crass it would behoove the 'producers' to make the promo piece/infomercial appear to be more significant than it actually was. I have seen nothing specifically sourced but to me this is similar to "likely a [whatever] based on evidence" edit summary I see on Wikipedia from time to time. For instance: 1)The book is under copyright. 2) The book seems to have the same content & POV as the film. 3) Both works appear to have been created around the same time. 4) But this is the clincher - Trademark registration(abandoned) AND Trademark protection - for phrase? - originally filed 1992, registered in 1996. So during the early 1990s, during the time the "documentary" was filmed, the exact phrase was under trademark protection. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: My brain is getting tired from researching the Chaneyverse and I think I need a little help connecting those dots. Do most movies/books trademark their names? It looks like the trademark is associated with the nonprofit/religious organization (EIN 20-1423183) called America-A Call to Greatness, which is also under the name John Chalfant (same as the book's author). Apparently they were incorporated in 2003, but haven't filed taxes because they've been reporting $0 income. It makes sense that they'd be connected, but I wish some names overlapped. Permstrump (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Permstrump:In 1995, during the time that this two-hour promotional-film was created, the phrase "America: A Call to Greatness" was under trademark protection, as a service-mark or trademark of "America: A Call to Greatness Inc", the papers being filed on behalf of John W. Chalfant and his company. Most book titles aren't able to be trademarked, because they aren't unique enough. However, if a book series becomes successful and, for example, another writer and/or publisher tried to publish a new "Harry Potter and the [whatever]" that would not be allowed under law because Harry Potter is a recognizable brand (much in the same way as Chanel or Ford Cars or McDonald's is). Now, since Chalfant had the phrase under trademark protection at the time this "movie" was produced, the "Movie" has the same types of material - the Christian religion influencing the founding of the United States - it is an informed supposition that the movie/the book are one and the same. Warren Chaney's company, "Dynamic Media", bought the rights to the film in 2001 (per [1]), however, nowhere in the movie is the book or its author mentioned, nowhere in the book is this movie mentioned. We can suppose all we want and I can deduce that something is true but that doesn't mean there is a verifiable source that states this truth. So, as far as I can tell, the movie did not receive a theatrical release, it seems to have been mostly exhibited privately - in churches, at conventions (it received its premiere at an annual convention of "The Council for National Policy" a conservative group). The movie does exist (not a HOAX) but I does not seem notable to me. Shearonink (talk) 08:01, 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) 22:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Baran[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:00, 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) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Completely NN player who played parts of only three minor pro seasons. Unsurprisingly, this is another stub creation of the notorious Dolovis, who seems to be responsible for most of the ice hockey AfDs filed in the last couple of years. Ravenswing 13:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Central Hockey League (1963–1984) is a lower-level league in which a player accrues notability under WP:NHOCKEY #4: Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements). But nothing written or sourced in this article rises to that level. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just First Team All-Stars, not second or third? Baran was a QMJHL third team all-star in 1981–82 according to eliteprospects. Delete otherwise. --Parkfly20 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"First Team All-Stars" is the explicit text, and that explicitly (and by design) leaves out Second and Third Team All-Stars. Ravenswing 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Keith[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Emeritus is not a distinguished chair, the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education is not a major society, WorldCat shows no significant books. Many unsourced promotional claims in the text. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly nothing to even suggest somewhat of a better article yet, draft and userfy later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to have had a worthy career, but not a notable one.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- claims seem acceptably written given the CV as source, but do not amount to a GNG or WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fine article and career, but I'm not seeing anything to meet General Notability Guideline or Academic Notability Guideline. Alsee (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yumiko Nakajima[edit]

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

Only one notable anime role as Yuko in Ef. GamePlaza Haruka only shows 21 roles, mostly minor ones. So I don't believe this meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--十八 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to even suggest better general notability and there was certainly enough time for this to improve and we can wait for a better article whenever that happens. Notifying tagger Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't stablish that this could meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has articles in 3 other languages, but all are the same as this. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is lacking in either English or Japanese. To make matters worse, there appears to be an academic with the same name and even kanji, so false positives are prevalent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any significant roles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:VG's custom RS search for video game oriented sources has no hits beyond Metacritic and GameTrailers for ef. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable voice actor, fails gng; –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Scientific Martial Arts and Physical Culture[edit]

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

Unsourced article by an SPA about a non-notable martial arts organization. Fails WP:GNG and there's nothing to show this organization meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE or WP:NORG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Heavily advert with no indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Petrie[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have won any major pro wrestling titles and didn't have major acting roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage from reliable sources that would show that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ackerman[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with only 1 major starring role. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I entirely agree as this is obvious, not notable or otherwise well-known major actor. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has sources sources. HarrySnake (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: HarrySnake is a suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813.—Bagumba (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of work is simply not enough for considerable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One second tier role in a film is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Tom Green's House Tonight[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and non-notable list per WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of everybody who ever appeared as an interview guest on a talk show is not a thing we should be maintaining — it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia, which nuzzles up far too close to the edge of complete unmaintainability. And for that matter, nearly all of the sourcing here is to primary sources and blogs rather than to any real reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MC Mooks[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. One viral video, and a couple of unremarkable singles and an EP. The only independent sources are a brief blip of coverage for the viral video. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable yet and there's nothing to suggest he's anything other than a marginally known person. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:24, 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 redirect to List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children. And merge to the extent supported by consensus. Sandstein 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu magazines for children[edit]

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

Duplicate of List of magazines in Pakistan#Urdu magazines for children kashmiri ^TALK 00:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is presenting valuable information but the main list isn't long enough to need splitting. Siuenti (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with no prejudice against a resplit if and when needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 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 01:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplicate. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any notable Urdu magazines outside of Pakistan? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23 entries in Category:Urdu-language magazines. But we don't need to listify this small category in genre and also country. Hence suggested delete than redirect to Pakistan's list. Even if there are no notable children+urdu+magazines outside Pakistan, its a quite generic term to redirect to a specific country. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unnecessary to have this as a separate page, when its contents are so sparse. Recreating it, if and when it becomes necessary, is quite simple. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Herbein[edit]

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

The article might pass for WP:ANYBIO since Herbein is known for his connection to the events related to the Three Mile Island accident. However, there is not enough info to pass for WP:GNG. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:35, 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, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently no obvious general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Meiri[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG nor WP:BIO; subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers). Subject has done nothing notable other than founding a company. Ireneshih (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Also note that the sources are external links to non-specific information, just general links. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, it is an obvious piece of self-promotion and needs paring down. Creative professionals in all fields do this on Wikipedia (or try), the thing is, we keep the articles if notability can be verified. Even if they are lousy articles. But this is far from the worst of the type: it actually has some usable sources. Coverage in tabloids such as ABC certainly counts towards notability. Note, however, that El Economista is not a tabloid. And legitimate Hebrew news media (TheMarker) that cover business. There does seem to be notability established by these sources and by sources including: [2] for Meiri/Orpan Group under WP:CREATIVE "# 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i.e., the attractions he and his company creates garner significant media attention. He falls more or less into the category of notable curators or set designers; see, for example, Lisa Small, George Tsypin). I have added category: museum exhibit designers to article, click on it and see that we have multiple articles about careers of this type. Also, where a creative artist and the corporation he founds are more or less synonymous, we have a single article with notability supported by articles about the artist and/or about the corporation (cf. Georg Jensen; Anne Klein) E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 29 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, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Weak Keep, nominator routinely nominates articles and mentions "tabloid" newspapers but either uses that as a weasel word or doesn't realize the distinction in printing between tabloid and broadsheet. Regardless, there's enough sources and claims and assertions of notability to keep this, even a bit weakly though.
Delete too many of the citations are to building that don't even mention him. This is almost a "one event person" as those articles that do mention him are predominately about Toledo. The coverage is not in-depth. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG - 5 trivial mentions on News; zip on Newspapers, Highbeam and Scholar; a single trivial hit on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Pamarthy[edit]

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

PROD material which I considered but chose AfD instead for clarity, G4 (if it's ever needed) and in case familiar attention is needed, not to mention this is also borderline speedy material. Questionably notable and improvable as searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this so unless he's locally notable and significant, there's not much convincingly better. Notifying author Babji Goud and past user and tagger Sitush. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has no WP:RS because it does not have significant coverage.Pixarh (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added WP:RS to article. Cartoonist is covered in depth in multiple independent reliable sources and meets WP:NOTEBLP. Pamarthy is also a well recognized artist who has achieved national and international recognition in his field. Unfortunately, the editor who created the original article was not well-versed in Wikipedia policy. There are more reliable sources out there, and the article could use more work. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 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. Sandstein 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Alan Titchmarsh Show[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure to List of The Alan Titchmarsh Show episodes like other talk shows. This was a show that ran for seven seasons in the UK (equivalent of 150 US TV years). —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopaedic list. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another daily talk show guest list with zero sources and no hope of finding any outside of the probably small Allan Titchmarsh Show obsessionist community. If you're in the media in Britain/ITV regular they've been on this show; no need for a list about this. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no basis for the list is provided in the lead, fails WP:Stand alone lists. --Bejnar (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restructure per Wikimandia. Artw (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikimandia is —Мандичка

@Artw: On what Wikipedia guideline or policy is your recommendation based? Please see: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: The guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. This list is in the wrong format. It should be restructured to follow the same format as other articles (see Category:Lists of variety television series episodes). —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. They are kept or deleted based upon what they are right now, not what they could be. Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. - An avenue for page improvement has been suggested, I believe it is worth pursuing. Artw (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both keep votes in this afd effectively say this page isn't notable but a similar one with a different name using similar content would be. The correct procedure is userfy content, delete this page and recreate the new article when it is encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. That is categorically untrue. The policy is WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. We don't delete articles because they're not good enough yet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be clearer and add the relevant words in bold we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them and make them notable. Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoens all the time, and that's where "2nd nomination, users said they'd improve it but actually they didn't." comes in to play, should the article fail to improve. There's no rush here, and I'm not sure what emergency you think you are addressing. Artw (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of every afd discussion is the notability of the subject. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tibbo[edit]

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

Promotional lovefest for this individual who lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources in this hagiography is mainly about others with passing mentions of him or quotes from him, not independent coverage of him. The one exception is from CBA National Magazine, the official periodical of the Canadian Bar Association, one trade rag is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Certain editors seem bent on doing a huge promotional job for Tibbo. It is a stretch to suggest that Tibbo is anything more remarkable or noted than the average HR legal practitioner. The Snowden case is a prominent one but there is no shortage of those. An encyclopedic, factual article seems impossible in the face of the keenness of his acolytes, so deletion is very strongly supported by me. sirlanz(talk) 07:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here — but as far as I can see, the sourcing is very disproportionately dependent on simple namechecks of his existence in coverage of other topics (usually as a provider of soundbite), with not nearly enough sources that are substantively about him to satisfy WP:GNG at all. And there's a definite promotional/PR skew here, as the nominator correctly points out — it's not so blatant that it would have triggered my WP:CSD reflex, but it's definitely tilted in that direction. I give Sirlanz credit for the work he's done trying to tone it down, but he's entirely correct that there's just not enough meat on this bone to hold all the puffery. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever becomes the subject of enough coverage (which, again, is not the same thing as getting quoted in articles about other things.) Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first the list of references looked impressive, so I checked about a quarter of them. I see where the other commenters are coming from and agree with their insights. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(non-admin closure)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (self) -- samtar ^whisper 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

”Ioan Popescu” Pedagogical High School Barlad[edit]

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

Non-notable school/educational organization. No references, very few found when searching. -- samtar ^whisper 12:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - typically, I'd be all for deleting/redirecting articles on Romanian high schools below the rank of national college, but it looks as though this one may pass. You've got the local media sources ([3], [4], [5], [6]), which, granted, are sometimes a bit dodgy; you've got the national press article ([7]); but you also have a published study, Monografia Liceului Pedagogic Bârlad (Iași, 1970, authors: Mihai D. Mîță, Dumitru D. Mîță, Ștefan Cucoș). And a nice scholarly article (p. 13) in Academia Bârlădeană, the local literary/cultural magazine. So I'm fairly confident about this school being notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've tried to help out cleaning up the article, there seems there could well be a notable stub in there somewhere -- samtar ^whisper 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination as it seems now other editors and myself have cleared away some of the fluff, and that Biruitorul did some (much better) reference sourcing, the article's topic passes muster.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambini Sharma[edit]

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

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG. All sources are of NDTV, the media firm where she works. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was nominated in 2014 and since then there there has been no attempt to bring this article to compliance with WP:GNG or any specialized notability criteria. Wikipedia requires articles to meet some minimum standard. No notability criteria has been applied to this person and there are no sources cited to meet GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for (1) lack of independent sources (2) lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The passing mention here is the only independent sort. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 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) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biology Fortified, Inc.[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, lacks verifiable secondary sources, notability questionable. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing and I PRODed this as shown here. Draft and userfy if needed I suppose. Notifying past taggers Kvng, DGG and Fayenatic london. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They look interesting, and it might conceivably be possible to write an article, but this is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by the standard of WP:ORG. The external links are primary sources and press releases. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that it fails the in depth coverage standard of WP:ORG. However, I ended up reading the article at SourceWatch, which was more balanced. The couple of in depth articles by GM-Watch don't amount to substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and have their own bias. The Forbes was just a mention in passing, and the Cato Institute video wasn't independent. The "Biology Fortified’s GMO Corn Experiment" caught the eye of someone at Popular Science but the article is slim at best. I am not sure what to do with the numerous mentions at Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project, whose bias is also obvious. --Bejnar (talk) 06:11, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Gibson Weddings[edit]

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

Comprehensively fails WP:CORP. The two "awards" from Wedding Ideas magazine are neither awards (only a "finalist") nor remotely notable. The remaining references are either connected to the subject, wedding blogs, IMDB, or spurious, e.g. "Brown lauds Comic Relief 'heroes'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. which has no mention whatsoever of the subject. I can find nothing better. Note also that Sam Gibson Weddings is a member of the 20Collective, an article by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm and deleted multiple times. See also the related Articles for deletion/York Place Studios and Articles for deletion/Neil Palmer Photography. Although the creators of these three articles are all allegedly different editors, they all have the same modus operandi, i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return a week later to turn it into an article [8], [9], [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 9 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 per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multipleindependent reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. The lack of sources is such that the creator was reduced to citing a wedding blog and directory service for content, among other unreliable sources. I applaud Voceditenore for his work. --Bejnar (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some coverage here and there, yes, but simply not enough for a better notable 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Europe Trust[edit]

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

Article written in heavily negative tone per WP:NPOV, making possibly libellous allegations against a legally established organisation, with poorly-referenced allegations against living persons per WP:BLP. The newspaper articles supporting the allegations are all behind paywalls, and the two Times articles in the references carry prominent banners noting that they are the "subject of a legal complaint from The Europe Trust". Norvoid (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems pretty decent coverage in news articles and books (not all on the page) of the notability of this organisation, if not the actual sections making allegations. JMWt (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JMWt: yes, I'm not disputing notability. But the article needs a complete re-write, as it's currently an attack article. Norvoid (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an argument for speedy keep - this is not the forum to highlight that a page needs dramatic improvement, but to discuss deletions. JMWt (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a borderline argument for speedy delete, for which many of the criteria apply to articles on subjects which are notable but need a complete re-write, for example, blatant spam about notable companies, blatant copyvio, etc. Unfortunately, none of the CSD criteria apply here, so my only option seemed to be to take it to AFD. Notability isn't the only reason for an AFD. Norvoid (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Per JMWt. If it's notable, as the nominator admits, problems need to be corrected through editing, not deletion. If the nominator does not care to do that, s/he should just tag the problems s/he sees in the article and/or place edit requests on the article talk page and let someone else address them when and if someone gets around to it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no valid deletion rationale provided. AfD is not to fix NPOV issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proponent of deletion appears to be saying blow it up and start over, but it isn't obvious why it needs to be stubbed or blown up. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the charity is notable. I see no reason for WP:TNT; the article is not written with a heavily negative tone. In fact, it is much more un-judgmental than many of the news stories. --Bejnar (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article is discussed in several reliable publications and is therefore notable. Any deficiencies or lack of neutrality in the article should be dealt with by editing and not by deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'; WP:SNOWBALL, as per above. and WP:TROUT to Nom for inappropirate use of AFD. POV issues can be discussed on article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as completely invalid reasons to nominate. WP:NPOV issues are fixed by editing, not deleting, and so are WP:BLP issues; sources being "behind paywalls" is not a problem (see also WP:OFFLINE, we don't discriminate on sources based on such things), and obviously the fact that a newspaper has received a legal threat has nothing to do with our article. LjL (talk) 17:08, 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. Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Brown[edit]

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

This young lady's name should be redirected to Miss Alabama USA according to WP:NOPAGE. She also won a teen contest, and is listed there already. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noting your point from earlier, I again draw your attention to the five newspaper articles, only two of the seven references are from one of the various pageants Ms. Brown was featured in. Good, reliable third-party sources covering all the information. This meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging notability~(though routine local coverage does not establish it), but suggesting we follow WP:NOPAGE. If you feel NOPAGE does not apply please address that issue. ThanksLegacypac (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 08:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough information for a stand-alone article and the subject meets gng. Jacona (talk) 15:21, 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) 02:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G. George Addonizio[edit]

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

Biography, sourced half to raw tables of election results and half to passing namechecks in news articles in which he was not the principal subject, of a person notable only as a smalltown municipal councillor and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL — municipal councillors get Wikipedia articles if they serve in major metropolitan global cities and/or can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and non-winning candidates for office get Wikipedia articles only if you can qualify them for Wikipedia articles on some other criterion completely independent of their candidacy. But neither of those has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleteper nom. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for US house even if they have a major party nomination are not notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 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 redirect to Tobu Railway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobu[edit]

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

Famous Birthdays not RS, other than that, nothing Naraht (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 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 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tobu Railway, where it pointed until 2012. No evidence of significant news coverage for the musician. Tobu used to be a disambiguation page before it got hijacked a couple of months ago, but per Wp:TWODABS any confusion with Toubou people can be handled by a hatnote.210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm the original lister, no problem with changing to that redirect...Naraht (talk) 14:30, 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) 02:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Game Festival[edit]

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

No independent sources or evidence of notability; prod removed —Swpb^talk 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 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 07:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleteper nom. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches simply found no better coverage to suggest a better notable article and simply looking at the history shows the consistency of activity this article has goten since starting, hardly much. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Park (Omaha, Nebraska)[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this article has existed for seven years or more without a deletion discussion, but it is very clear to me that there is no evidence of notability here. An internet search turns up nothing of use—just Wikipedia mirrors, map sites, social media, and the like. Created by a WP:SPI (only made edits to this page) who actually blatantly states a WP:COI in the article: "Information provided by Rogers Construction, Omaha, Nebraska, park developers." Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 04:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 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 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no significant coverage of this park by searching online. This site has eight photographs and shows that it's just a local patch of green space with some playground equipment, useful for the kids if you live nearby, but with nothing notable about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 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) 02:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Life[edit]

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

I !vote delete, as this magazine does not meet WP:NMAG or WP:GNG. The current references do not lead anywhere, and archive.org doesn't have copies. Searches on Google, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Highbeam and the SCMP website did not turn up any substantive discussion of the magazine. /wia /tlk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 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 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete nothing is nothing. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, the 3 references are especially bizarre leading to the same one page website which doesn't even discuss the magazine. Have been unable to find anything that makes it notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 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) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zanjirani Farahani[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. References all mention him only in passing, with no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Article was speedy deleted once already. Norvoid (talk) 17:46, 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) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 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 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single trivial hit in News; nothing in Newspapers, Books, Highbeam or Scholars. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SixtyEight Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:SPECULATION, and WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the sources mentioned in this article are either not reliable, only make small mentions, or do not mention the company at all and are only used for original research.--Proud User (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.Lakun.patra (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 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 07:25, 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) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive Technology[edit]

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

I don't see notability here. Of the three refs , two relate to an acquisition by one company of another, and the other is an advertisement for its products. Not notability as required by WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 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 07:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing here currently at all to fully convince better notability and improvement for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Henry Cavendish (British Army officer). --BDD (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Compton Cavendish[edit]

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

Inappropriate DAB by Neelix, and these guys were brothers. Maybe turn into a redirect to the second brother if it has any use. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inaccurate disambiguation. The names are not the same (nor do they contain the same exact wording); no disambiguation is needed. This is just some bizarre twist on Neelix's redirect compulsion. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henry Cavendish (British Army officer), which is the title of the 2nd one. Hatnote to similar name if needed, but I think it probably isn't. Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Boleyn: it's plausible that Henry might be sought as "Henry Compton Cavendish", as the middle name could be part of a double surname. Unless we have any evidence that George was ever known as Henry, there's no need for a link to him. So redirect to Henry Cavendish (British Army officer). PamD 14:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a compound surname - I checked that. Their father George Cavendish, 1st Earl of Burlington does not have Compton anywhere in his name. Legacypac (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But readers might or might now know that, if they find a reference to him using all 4 names and have to choose which ones to put into a search. Miss out the "Frederick" as obvious 2nd forename, but then guess whether "Compton" is surname or not. We might as well help those who guess wrong. PamD 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a compound surname, but it follows the British upper class tradition of the time, a 'family name' as a second middle name. In this case, both listed are the result of a marriage between Miss Compton and Mr Cavendish. As both were established upper class families, both may well have been used at times, so definitely worth a redirect rather than deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, speedily per Boleyn. Widefox; talk 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - and no chance they called the other brother by his middle name which was the same as his notable brother's first name. since we all agree, we can close this up anytime. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 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 redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2014). No consensus on the target, List of Emmerdale characters (2014) and List of Emmerdale characters#Regular characters were both mentioned, so I rather arbitrarily chose one. If an editor feels strongly about another target feel free to change it, and if there's a dispute feel free to take it to WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Atkinson (actor)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR and what few sources could be found online fail to show any significant coverage, failing WP:GNG as well. Aoidh (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per IMDb, actor has just one role, which, while apparently of some significance, is not the multiple such roles WP:NACTOR calls for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to List of Emmerdale characters#Regular characters. WP:TOOSOON for this teen actor. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ child actor in first job, a major role, Lachlan White, on Emmerdale, an enduringly popular British soap opera. Here's a google new search on: "thomas atkinson" + emmerdale. I added some sources to the page. I did not wade through all of them, although i did look long enough to assure myself that someone who watches the show and has the right keywords (or patience) could find much more material in RS discussing him in some depth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to List of Emmerdale characters (2014), or, perhaps, it would be more efficient to merge into List of Emmerdale characters (2014), his debut year, where his character already has a section. WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. |1000]]E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this seems quite obvious for an actor with only one best known work so far. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 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. Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Anderson[edit]

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

Formula article on a Miss Oregon which should be deleted and a redirect to Miss Oregon created. This article even says she went back to school after winning. Follow the advice in WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. "she went back to school after winning" – please see WP:NTEMP. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline aka "15 minutes of fame" says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." which is the case here. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficiently sourced. As for being upset that she went back to school - that is a non-starter here. Jodie foster "went back to school" and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. studied Greek at the age of 92. Collect (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as her alleged notability is for a state-level beauty pageant -- which is, in fact, an ephemeral single event, even if granting the supposed importance of being a state-level beauty queen. Basically, the article is a collection of trivia propped up by local "hometown girl makes good" coverage and doesn't indicate any real accomplishments worth noting. So no, it doesn't cross -- especially not "easily" -- any real notability thteshold. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is plenty here for an article, so NOPAGE is not applicable, and the subject meets gng. Going back to school is irrelevant. Jacona (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the going back to school comment is she did not pursue a career in modeling, acting, or anything that would generate continue notability. She had her WP15MOF and that's it. Look into the sourcing and point out the substantive coverage please. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Cook (Miss Oregon)[edit]

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

Formula article about a Miss Oregon just like a bunch of others - insert name, insert year, insert city, parents names, college name and major, and Vying for Miss America section where we learn she did not win the title.

Delete and insert a redirect to Miss Oregon per WP:NOPAGE which does not require a debate about the notability of the BLP, just appropriate presentation to match the other girls on the list that don't have a separate article. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the article - and, truth to tell, it looks like it is not precisely a cut-and-paste "formula" duplication of every other such article. Collect (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:23, 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 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McGowan[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Studying philosophy at a state school is not enough to justify a stand a lone page at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently sourced - and "lists" generally include no specific details on the people. Collect (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Mead[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. She did not even win the title, but got it when the winner was invalidated. Update: See source analysis below before telling us this is well sourced. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable enough to have her own page. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not the criteria. Being Miss Lane County 2008 or having parents is not enough to justify a standalone article - the question is WP:NOPAGE - what in the article is important? which your stock KEEP response to every single AfD on a pageant article does not address this issue. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:GNG does count where the article is sufficiently sourced. Placing a full article into a simple name mention in a list does not conform with Wikipedia policies which allow vast numbers of Pokémon articles. By the way, deriding an editor as having a stock KEEP response is not precisely the sort of comment which will affect the close of any AfD. Collect (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said editor is at ANi trying to have me topic banned for trying to separate winners that have some additional claim to fame worthy of an short article from those with nothing that goes beyond what fits neatly on a list (and perhaps a mini-bio on the event page). A demonstrated belief that every pageant winner is notable and to heck with GNG or WP:NOPAGE or WP:NMODEL should depreciate the weight placed on their non-assessment. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I have already opined at the noticeboard in that matter. Lists are nice - where there is insufficient sourced material about the person found in WP:RS sources to warrant an article. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. WP:NMODEL is not an issue here. - Dravecky (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This cut and paste analysis is so inaccurate it and all opinions on related articles should be disregarded. See cite list below. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These cut-and-paste nominations are overreaching, dismissive of the humans involved, and strangely personal to the nominator for some reason. That the article is thoroughly-cited, carefully assembled from many reliable sources, is how biographies of living persons should be built. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be topic banned then for you can't see that routine coverage of local pageants and links to prove someone did not compete in something are not substantive. Don't pontificate on my motives, I'm just cleaning up here. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike some pageant title holders, this one has reliable sources ranging over many years, meets gng, and has plenty of info for an article. Jacona (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NMODEL is an issue because it is the closest thing specific category that covers the fact the girls parade around stage in various outfits to be judged. Her modeling career consisted of a single event she did not win. She did not win the state title - she only was the backup when the winner was later disqualified for residency issues.

This article is cited to death, but fails spectacularly in RS sources or to prove any significant accomplishments. Only cite 28 is directly related to winning a title. Only Cite 29 covers anything she did while holding the title.

Cite 1 [11] used to justify the statement she won Miss Lincoln County (not a valid reason for an article) is actually covering she was in the Top 10 out of 22 in Miss Oregon. It reads like a press release complete with detailed scores and is WP:ROUTINE coverage in a small town news outlet.

Cite 2 [12] is also a press release based article - not about her, but about the event. She gets a short formula bio along with 21 other girls. Not significant coverage of her - only the event.

Cite 3 [13] is a list of contestants (Miss America is smart enough to use a list, we aren't) where she has a thumbsize photo, name, local title, Platform TBA and Jazz dance for talent. Not substantive coverage. Note she is NOT listed as the winner here, another girl is.

Cite 4: [14] is "local person wins award" coverage of her winning Miss Lane County against 9 other girls (Not notable award for Wikipedia) but not the sweeper contest.

Cite 5: [15] 2007 Miss America's Oregon list (like cite 3) where the subject IS NOT ON THE LIST! [4] and [5] are used to cite a whole sentence "In 2007, Mead did not win a qualifying local pageant title and so did not participate in the 2007 Miss Oregon pageant.[4][5] They could also be used to cite you and I did not compete in Miss Oregon in 2007.

[6] is a deadlink to Miss Lane County - past title holders where presumably we would have seen a list. Not encyclopedic

Cite 7 [16] another Miss America LIST confirming she lost at state level.

Cite 8 [17] the free library a bunch of random news but near the bottom "Kelly Dorius, Miss University of Oregon, and Nichole Mead, Miss Lane County, each earned Top 10 scholarships of $1,000."

Cite 9 [18] another Miss America Oregon list - where you will not find the subject of this article. Used to cite "Mead did not participate in the 2009 Miss Oregon pageant. It could also be used to cite you and I did not participate.

Cite 10 [19] Miss Lane county page citing she won Miss University of Oregon, not a notable award either and not a RS.

Cite 11 [20] another Miss America Oregon LIST (see WP:NOPAGE to prove she did not win again.

Cite 12 [21] promotional facebook post, "I am so excited for our year ahead! Congrats to Miss Marion-Polk County 2011: Nichole Mead, 1st RU Havilah Hunt. And Miss Marion Polk County's Outstanding Teen Jordyn Greene, 1st RU Emily Curtis, Miss Congeniality Jordyn Greene. People's Choice, Michele Wagner!!!" Not what we call substantive coverage in RS.

Cite 13 [22] another Miss America LIST proving she list again.

Cite 14 [23] anouncement for Miss Oregon event. Her name and local title are somewhere in a long list.

Cite 15 [24] actually an article about the 4th runner up in a Portland paper which name checks the subject here as a runner up. Not substantive coverage.

Cite 16 dead link but appears to be a LIST (see WP:NOPAGE of girls who won scholarships at a local level Miss Three Rivers

Cite 17 dead link but was the guidelines for Miss Three Rivers

Cite 18 [25] anther Miss America Oregon LIST (see WP:NOPAGE confirming she lost again.

Cite 19 [26] Local news "Rachel Berry wins Miss Oregon title, Marli Marion selected Miss Outstanding Teen at Scholarship Pageant" where in a couple paragraphs we learn some other girl won Miss Oregon. No mention of this article subject.

Cite 20 [27] Miss Willimate Valley takes Oregon Crown. Article is about the winner mainly but near the bottom it says "Fourth runner-up was Allison Cook, Miss City of Sunshine, who won a $1,500 cash scholarship. Third runner-up was Shalese Curle, Miss Coos County, who won a $2,000 cash scholarship as well as Miss Congeniality’s $500 cash scholarship. "Second runner-up was Kayla Bowker, Miss Klamath County, who received a $2,500 cash scholarship and the $2,500 Spirit of Katie Scholarship in honor of Katie Harman, the only Miss Oregon to be crowned Miss America. First runner-up was Nichole Mead, Miss Three Rivers, who received a $3,500 cash scholarship. "

Cite 21 is dead link but headline is "How long did Miss Oregon live in the state. Eligibility questioned." so we can tell this was about Rachel Berry (also up for deletion).

Cite 22 [28] is about Berry stepping down. The subject is name checked "The first runner-up was 24-year-old Nicole Mead of Three Rivers. Pageant officials had not officially declared that Mead will become Miss Oregon. Kayla Bowker, 21, of Klamath County, and 18-year-old Shalese Curle of Coos County were the second and third runners up, respectively."

Cite 23-27 (see article) are all about Rachel Berry's fall because she did not update her drivers license long enough before the Miss Oregon pageant.

Cite 28 [[29]] Nicole Mead is the New Miss Oregon. This is the first substative coverage after 27 cites about minor contests or how she lost or did not compete.

Cite 29 [30] she meets some children at a local event. Routine WP:NOTNEWS

Cite 30 [31] reads in its entirety "University of Oregon alum and Newport native Nichole Mead, Miss Oregon 2012, will visit the UO on Feb. 14 and give a speech about scholarships from the Miss America Organization. The speech will take place at the Veterans Memorial Building on Willamette Street@@checked all links@@ at noon. She’ll sign autographs at The Duck Store at 2 p.m. Mead graduated from the UO in 2010. On Saturday, Feb. 16, she will attend the crowning of Miss University of Oregon." WP:NOTNEWS

Cite 31 [32] is about the new Miss Oregon Allison Cook (also at AfD) with no mention of this Bio Subject other then if you look closely - Mead is seen putting the crown on Cook's head (nothing about her in the caption either).

Cite 32 [33] is about Cook, no mention of Mead at all. Substantiates that Cook is the next Miss Oregon.

Cite 33 [34] says she is headed to Miss America. Not substantive coverage, but nice photo.

Cite 34 [35] is a nice WP:NOPAGE List where down near the bottom we find Mead got $3000 for being a non-finalist.

Cite 35 [36] dead link - a wedding announcement - we should be so happy for her.

Cite 36 dead link, but its a "For the record, marriage license applications" in a local paper.

Cite 37 [37] Mead's, while now Zahner's LinkedIn profile.

Cite 38 [38] "Who's on the move" routine listing of 33 people changing jobs. Nice WP:NOPAGE list.

Cite 39 [39] profile of Dana Phillips who is retiring from running Miss Oregon/ Mead is name checked at the very bottom as taking over (with two other women) Phillip's duties.

Based on this, we must DELETE and redirect to the Miss Oregon list. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should respect consensus, and avoid being dismissive towards other editors. We should be civil, we should not shout imperatives. We all have had a chance to read your arguments, you should respect our good faith arguments as well, even if you disagree. We appreciate your hard work on this subject; please respect ours as well. Jacona (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shouting, and I'm not posting misleading statements about sources like some editors. The closing admin will evaluate the strength of the arguments not just the number of votes. Given your analysis of the sources do you want to stick with your vote or change it? Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing words, such as "delete" above, in all capital letters is shouting; please don't do that. If I were to decide to change my vote, I would strike it out and replace it, as is the custom. Please don't badger editors who don't share all your opinions. Jacona (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CC Barber[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. The rest of the article is trivia and going for a nursing degree suggests no ongoing career that would establish additional coverage in RS. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does not challenge notability, and these auto keep votes do not address the NOPAGE policy. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Oregon USA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Prosser[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 19:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the Speedy keep criterion 1. This is Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Please discuss the possibility of a redirect in the talk page instead. --TL22 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ToonLucas22, SK#1 allows proposed redirects in the nom—changed within the last year czar 12:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearently that is not good enough on these low traffic articles. So Delete to prevent restoring and create a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the destination article is revised to have short bios of the winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets WP:GNG as a Google search suggests. Also has notability in the video gaming world as a manager for pro team Evil Geniuses and as an advocate for women in gaming. Merger into the Miss Oregon article won't really do the article justice.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in the article - says she is a facility manager for a company. I've yet to see a facility manager profiled. Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not in the EG article for some reason, and its possible that she doesnt' hold that position or any paid staff role anymore asthe video cited is from a few years ago.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the facility she managed is just a house (see video which is a tour, you can see the kitchen, bedroom, cat's basket, impressive misters on the back deck that the facility manager does not know how to turn on etc. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at this point. Almost no sources present in article, almost no content present, even less content present related to the things she's supposedly notable for. Most of the article's content are random factoids bout her personal life and education, something she's done well at, but we don't have an article for every valedictorian out there. I'd revise my opinion if someone rewrites the article with a bunch of reliable, third party sources, and noteworthy content, but as is, the article is currently pointless, and would be better off as a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but second option would be weak delete. The article fails our notability criteria but I'm fine IAR'ing here and supporting a redirect since this article doesn't justify a standalone article. If she didn't win the Oregon pageant we wouldn't even be having this discussion but I'll wait a couple days and see if the supporters involved pupporting her notability can furnish more evidence than what we have been given. Adwctam (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now at best as there may be as a better notable article as there could be, we can all wait for a future better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 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 delete. SpinningSpark 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith 1844 Presidential Platform[edit]

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

This is a copy of an 1844 document. It does not belong on Wikipedia as it is not an article. Documents belong on Wikisource. Bgwhite (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be more than a document. It is an important discussion piece that requires inclusion in order to remove the speculation and misinformation that has run rampant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be proposing would be an improper use of the platform as a primary source; it would be original synthesis, which we do not publish. But if reliable secondary sources have already discussed Smith in the way you envision, they might be summarized in a Wikipedia article. —teb728 t c 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource if it meets their inclusion criteria; otherwise Delete. It certainly doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. —teb728 t c 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This document is already included at Wikisource. [40] More details about Joseph Smith's quixotic—and ultimately fatal—1844 presidential campaign might well be added at Life of Joseph Smith from 1839 to 1844 and United States presidential election, 1844, accompanied by suitable reliable sources, but this lengthy primary source does not belong on Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arxiloxos. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Couple of things. 1. RHaworth Precviously deleted a similar page without discussion. That page was referenced. 2. The fact anyone would suggest this is OR is proof this needs to be kept. 3. User:Bgwhite/Bgwhite had asked the previous page be deleted and was denied. He added this discussion literally a few moments after it was resaved and before it was even finished. 4. I let you all comment to see your arguments. Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps now I might have a moment to finish. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator and Arxiloxos.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have said Transwikify to Wikisource, but if it is there, WP does not need it here. The author was the founder of the LDS, and his murder led Brigham Young to lead the LDS out of USA into what was then part of Mexico. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 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) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article groups together the information found on the country specific articles and is an unnecessary subset of the Europe article all linked here Template:Longevity. For example, EVERYONE born 110+ years ago in the modern Russia (and Finland and each of the other modern country cats) was born in the Russian Empire. It creates a maintenance hassle in an area where accurate updates are tough because of the poor coverage of these people by RS. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Yet more fanfluff listcruft. No RS to justify this a separate list. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I explained in the Nordic AFD, this "list of" article fails WP:LISTN as no sources (none at all, not even the GRG) discuss "supercentenarians from the Russian Empire". Also redundant because every name is mentioned in the other country and deaths by year articles under Template: Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but note the Russian Empire was partly in Europe, partly in Asia. EEng (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there are no Asian super old people outside Japan even though that country has 3% of Asians, but that is a different credibility issue with our coverage of the topic. And what is with the geography and political history bits between the lists? Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then. EEng (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 06:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Awful maintenance hassle, and a content fork. Over a dozen different countries is way too many to force into it. Even my grandmother was born in the Russian Empire. Ceosad (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what is wrong with this list. It is a very well put together list and very well maintained. Also why are you saying on other AFD's that one nation is too small and a group list is better. However in this AFD you say that a dozen different countries is way too many to force into it? That is something to think about. Petervermaelen (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Not at all the point being made. Russian Empire is a superset of a bunch of modern countries, but a subset of Europe. Therefore like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Nordic_countries it should be deleted as unhelpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-put-together and useful. Also note that the anti-supercentenarian crew AfD-nominated the article on Czech Supercentenarians with a claim that one nation is too small and a group list is better, and here they do exactly the opposite by claiming that this is too many countries all together. How does that work out? 930310 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

It's not a matter of the number of countries in each list, but the incoherence of the various subsets they represnet. Neither one particular country in isolation (e.g. France), nor a complicated mishmash of countries/territories that have faded in and out and in and out of existence (as here), make any sense as something that's useful to segregate off explicitly, when one big Europe list can be sorted and searched in any way the reader's heart desires. EEng (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the Russian Empire stretched over three continents (Europe, Asia and North America), so "One Big Europe List" won't really work. 930310 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make an effort to read the arguments already put forth before commenting. I myself raised that point already, and it was satisfactorily answered. EEng (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring - there are no Russian Empire super old people on the list who had anything to do with Alaska. Further there are only Japanese superold people on the Asian list. If Europe list is too big as you suggest, vote to delete this article as too big a scope, for at the relevant time when most of the people were born the Russian Empire covered 125.6 million subjects registered by the 1897 census, and had the third largest population in the world at the time and was the third largest land mass well beyond the size of Europe. Alternatively, perhaps we need to roll together all the British Empire people into one list and eliminate a bunch of country articles like Canada, the UK, Australia, Oceania, Asia outside Japan which includes one person born in India etc. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who said anything about the Europe list being too big? And if there's a British Empire list, it should be eliminated as well, with everyone being listed on the appropriate continent list. Once there's nothing left but continent lists, consideration should be given to having simply one huge worldwide list, and be done with it. That one list would do the work of the 50-100 lists we have now. EEng (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to 930310 and Petervermaelen's points, maybe poorly about too big or too small. Especially for Europe, I favor one big list with appropriate demarcations so you can see where each person lived or died. That cuts out all the double, triple, 10x listing of people here there and everywhere and simplifies maintenance. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary[edit]

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

This article groups together the information found on the country specific articles and is an unnecessary subset of the Europe article all linked here Template:Longevity. For example, EVERYONE born 110+ years ago in modern ~~Poland~~ (too confusing) so Austria was born in Austria-Hungary. It creates a maintenance hassle in an area where accurate updates are tough because of the poor coverage of these people by RS. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Actually, independent Poland as it existed pre-1773, 1918 to 1939, and again from 1945 to the present, includes parts of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Nazi Third Reich, Russian Empire until 1918, Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991, Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine. In the last 242 years, Poland has been much larger, much smaller, and non-existent geographically. Oh, and for the record, during the partitions of Poland between 1773 and 1795, the Russian Empire got the largest slice of Poland as it existed prior to 1773. Thought you should know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Massive redundancy considering more than half the countries here have their own article while the rest of the names are available in the "deaths in year" articles. Also fails WP:LISTN because there are no sources (not even the GRG) that discuss this particular list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Europe list is enough. EEng (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have country-specific supercentenarian lists. Austria-Hungary was a country. The fact that the people are listed in other (modern country) lists is immaterial. By that rationale, the Polish list isn't necessary (and a "maintenance hassle") because it's included in the European one. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you mentioned that as the Poland list is also up for AfD because it is a confused mess covering a people born in a country that did not exist. It needs to be merged into the Europe list too. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Also what CommanderLinx said. Canadian Paul 06:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one has the very same issues as the Russian Empire article. We cannot reliably maintain this fork. Ceosad (talk) 17:13, 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 keep. After additional sources were added, keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Steven Wright[edit]

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

I removed a speedy deletion tag from this bio because a clear claim of notability had been made and backed up by a reliable source. However, the Wired article ~~is the only source, and it~~ makes sweeping claims amid a great deal of surmise and conjecture, perhaps too much to meet WP:BLP requirements for such a dramatic assertion. I've cut the article back to the bare bones of Wired's assertion. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would just wait this out and see if it turns into anything bigger. A number of reputable sources have picked up on it. This may just be a sentence on Satoshi Nakamoto, or it could require its own article. -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

The independent Gizmodo ref helps considerably: my main concern rested on the single source. As you say, let's see how this plays out. I would expect more news shortly if both of those publications were pursuing the story independently. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's now a third, independent source from The Guardian, which I added to the article. It discusses the Bitcoin claims as well as a bunch of new info, most notably that Wright's home was raided today by Australian federal police. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:28BF:FB8A:B048:C0E2 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that, even if the Satoshi thing is a hoax, various sources have commented that the most likely hoaxer would be Wright himself. A hoax of that magnitude (if proven) would be notable in its own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Person currently part of an unfolding news story. Sukhoi 24 (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Can always be deleted later if it turns out to be untrue. Thue (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright Tom Ruen (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - it's a developing story, so give it a day or two to accumulate sources. Might blow over and stay WP:1E, but there seems to be some information beyond Bitcoin already. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the autor of BitCoin. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 13:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now --Lebd (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright- I like the redirect idea. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. However, the evidence is very strong that Wright either created bitcoin or was intimately involved in its creation, so I think there is a high probability that we will want to have an article on Wright in the near future. From that point a view, keeping the article for now may be a better idea, to avoid the hassle of having to overturn the AfD. Also, we might be able to use some of the sources from the WIRED story. Danski14^(talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain exactly how WP:NOTNEWS applies here? What is the relevant text in WP:NOTNEWS? --Nbauman (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect. Just another suspect. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Business Insider has more coverage about his life, they also interviewed him in 2014. He is CEO of a company, Demorgan, and an academic. He has also received coverage as a security expert. Fences&Windows 21:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1/ Think if it was your name in the title of the article, and all that is written is probably false, 2/ This is not a encyclopedia article but a newpaper article, 3/ Compare this with any another Wikipedia's article related on a personality and you will see this is not a usual Wikipedia's article, , 4/ this is really not the first time somebody think have found Satoshi Nakamoto (as a person or a group) and it has always been denied, 5/ More globally I think only author that that have real and verified information should write about a personnality, 6/ here it is just a copy of thinks that have been published elsewhere by some journalists seeking to increase the audience of their newspaper or website and modify their information hour by hour, 7/ Wikipedia is neither a newspapers nor an investigation website, 8/ wikipedia should immediately delete any article that is concretely defamation, 8/ waiting the article is deleted, I suggest to constrain any any contributor to publish an artcile on itself with the same kind of information

All of Wikipedia is a "copy of thinks [sic] that have been published elsewhere by some journalists". Wikipedia is a collection of information derived from reliable, secondary, sources, and mainstream newspapers and magazines are formally considered among the "most reliable" sources. The article just repeats what is said in those sources; ie., that the allegations are widely considered serious but not yet proven. For point #4, unlike all previous "Satoshis", Wright hasn't denied the allegations. He deleted his blog and Twitter soon after the allegations were published, but he hasn't denied them, either in public or (at least on-the-record) to any of the journalists that contacted him. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Looks to be a developing story that is gaining notability per the sources I found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've already "voted", but going over the three-point test from WP:PSEUDO:

"Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage?" Clearly yes. See eg. the coverage of Wright as an individual here or here, which include extensive details of Wright's life, beyond just "he might be Satoshi". This article, about Wright and his "Bitcoin bank", predates the Satoshi claims by over a year.

"Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage?" Again, clearly yes. Wright is the main focus of the above three articles (and more besides), with other people like Dave Kleiman and Wright's wife Ramona Watts as background figures.

"Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" This is slightly less clear, but I'd also say yes. Wright's conflicts with the Australian Tax Office over quite large amounts of money, his building the most powerful privately owned supercomputer (on Top500 here), his founding of a large "Bitcoin bank", etc. are all important in their own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:F46E:C25A:C76C:22DE (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be deleted if this all turns out to be wrong, but truth be told I think he's an interesting enough individual in his own right to merit a page regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0T0 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is now a know hoax, verified by http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.53.173 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Regardless of whether he is truly Nakomoto, this is significant coverage, and his notability probably surpasses this event in any case.Jacona (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Move to Incubation - Page is currently better suited in subsection of Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright page, and since the page discusses a current event that is rapidly evolving, the decision to keep or delete should be made later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.168 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Craig Steven Wright is already a notable figure for various reasons, such as having made it to the 15th place in the list of the largest supercomputers of the world with a machine that (by all evidence so far) does not exist. Being mistakenly identified as Satoshi Nakamoto is only a small detail of a bigger story. Also, there is now a New York Times article covering the incident. --143.106.24.25 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The breadth and scope of the reliable and verifiable coverage distinctly about the subject exceeds the minimum standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 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. Two have not been deleted (Boys 63kg and Girls 52kg), and will be relisted, because these have some results included and all the deletion rationales were on the basis that these were empty. SpinningSpark 18:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' freestyle 46 kg[edit]

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

Blank article with no substance. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the weight details of this event suffer from the same problem. Looks like they were created and never filled in. Even so it could be argued that Wrestling at a Youth Olympics is notable but not individual weight articles since few if any of the participants could be considered notable. I am going to add those individual articles to this AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These are all just blank templates that were never filled in or sourced. In addition, I would question the notability of the individual divisions of a youth event. This seems like it should be an obvious speedy delete. Papaursa (talk) 15:19, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Burfoot[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails NFOOTBALL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:00, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Capital[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion, because it is closely related and similarly fails WP:N:

The sources in Paramount Capital do not establish notability. Let's go through each:

Shortened for readability

Source 1 does not currently exist, and when it did, it was a one-sentence rote listing of the company, "Paramount Capital Inc in New York, NY is a private company categorized under Financial Advisory Services".
Source 2 does not currently exist, and never did;
Source 3 is self-published, and in any case, does not mention "Paramount" once, and is dynamic;
Source 4 is self-published, and simply says that a website is affiliated with Paramount;
Source 5 currently redirects to the website's home page, and used to mention Paramount once: "Paramount BioCapital, Inc. served as the lead placement agent and gross proceeds were approximately $18.1 million";
Source 6 does not exist and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 7 is a rote listing that Paramount exists;
Source 8 was simply a rote mention that Paramount bought stock, along with several other companies: "The Emeryville company (OTCBB: BNVI) sold shares to RA Capital, Paramount, BioCapital Asset Management, Ironwood Capital and other private shareholders";
Source 9 is a self-published press release;
Source 10 403s and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 11 never mentions Paramount;
Source 12 gives "page not found" and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 13 404s, Wayback Machine shows a blank screen, and is in any case a blog;
Source 14 never talks about Paramount at all;
Source 15 is restricted-access, but in any event, from the URL, doesn't look like it has anything to do with Paramount;
Source 16, 17 are simply bios of employees;
Source 19, a 12-paragraph source, gives a passing mention of one Paramount employee in "She finds herself turning for advice to Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald, chairman of Paramount Capital Asset Management Inc., the venture capitalist who provided her first financial-industry break eight years ago";
Source 20 is a self-filed SEC filing;
Source 21 refers to http://www.paramount-group.com, not this paramountcapital.com;
Neither sources 22 nor 23 ever mention Paramount.

For those reasons, the sources do not demonstrate Paramount Capital's (or its subsidiary's) notability. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only do the sources fail to meet GNG, there are a lot of claims that have {{citation needed}} after them, and said claims aren't even that special. Note: I shortened the reflist with L235's permission Primefac (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the current coverage is something but simply not enough of a better notable article as it could be. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

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

No notable promotion, lack of sources HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only mentioned in lists (databases), blogs, and a few adverts. No indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches clearly found no considerably better coverage, only a few passing mentions here and there. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 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.