Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 November	15 November >

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 redirect to List of trans-Neptunian objects. This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trans-Neptunian Objects[edit]

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

Article I created turns out to be a duplication, so AfD for reason A10. The existing article is List of trans-Neptunian objects and is much more established than my little stub. - Denimadept (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to the other page. No need for AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea. Done. - Denimadept (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D Company, 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion[edit]

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

A7 Article does not meet notability guidelines. WP:MILMOS indicates integral components of units rarely independently meet notability guidelines. Usually if notability is established, it will be included in an article on the parent unit unless the reason for notability is independent of that unit. This is particularly true when the parent, as in this case, is a support unit, not a combat unit. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the guidance at WP:MILMOS/N. Individual companies of battalions (as opposed to some separate combat companies) have been judged NN over and over at deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into battalion article. Subordinate subunits are almost always not notable, especially in this case. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peacemaker67. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Company-size units, especially those which are organic to a larger unit, are not generally considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Organic company-sized units are not generally considered notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Zengyi[edit]

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

There is no available historical information available on this figure (web). The article also lists no sources as to verify the existence of this person. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:NPOL as the governor of Jiangxi Province. There's actually much historical information about this person, thus WP:BASIC is also met. Sources include:[1][2][3]--Antigng (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Advice to nominator, try Google before stating that "[t]here is no available historical information available on this figure (web)". A 10 second search led me to [4]. A governor is clearly notable. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. However, Zee money (talk · contribs) should be reprimanded for creating a large number of stub articles without references (I've reminded him a while ago), making it difficult for new article patrollers to verify their notability. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Kumar[edit]

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

This page does meet most of the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:G4 as it is substantially identical to the article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhilash Kumar. There is a non-trivial difference: the assertion that Kumar will play a major role in an upcoming movie, Ghayal Once Again. This of course requires references in in reliable sources for both this movie and this person. Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely not notable and also unacceptable at this time. Notifying past AfDers Sam Sailor and Sanskari. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Thanks. Apparently {{u}} does not always echo well, I'm here by coincidence. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentioned in passing re Ghayal Once Again, but I do not get the impression it's a major role. Still, we are not close to WP:NACTOR here nor to meeting WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; borderline, but rough consensus to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agnesa Vuthaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT. No reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 08:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: created by a now blocked sockpuppeteer. The Banner talk 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of ongoing coverage of her career both as a model and a fashion designer. There is extensive coverage, albeit in Albanian, with a high volume of short pieces as is also typical of English-language fashion/celebrity coverage, as well as longer pieces, like this one from a major Albanian newspaper: Gjergji, Albina (17 April 2015). "Agnesa Vuthaj, "Rrofshin armiqtë, pa ata s'do isha kjo që jam…"!". Koha Jonë (in Albanian). Retrieved 7 November 2015.. I've added this one to the article and more is clearly available to be mined. - Dravecky (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kohajone.com looks like RS, and additional foreign language sources seems very credible. Alsee (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think that an interview with the subject of the rticle is a reliable, independent source? The Banner talk 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs a lot of improvement but no deletion. She has an ongoing career. Nothing mentioned in the article is untrue or exaggerated.Klan - Issues 471-479 - Page xiv Mondiad (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, Mondiad, but could you prove that with sources conform WP:RS? The Banner talk 20:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Klan (magazine) is a reliable source when it comes to contemporary biographies like Vuthaj's. It is a magazine in Tirana. I don't see any reason to disqualify it in this case. Mondiad (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am thinking of removing the missolgy source if I can find a better one to add in its place. I will try to find some more good sources as well. She has notability and passes GNG.Zpeopleheart (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure my !vote will make any difference but the subject at this stage fails ONEEVENT and GNG, The sources provided are pretty weak and IMHO not enough to establish notability, I'm wondering if it's a TOOSOON case aswell. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tafseer-e-Siddiqui[edit]

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

An unremarkable book, one of a myriad tafsirs, or explanations of Quran. Google returns around 147 hits, nearly all are electronic copies or library catalogues where the book is mentioned. No third-party sources. Hence, does not fulfill WP:NBOOKS. kashmiri ^TALK 21:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found at least 1 mention in what seems to be a reliable independent source, BUT it is merely a trivial mention, so it fails the "significant coverage" criterium of WP:GNG and note 1 in criterium #1 of WP:NBOOK. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely until a better article is available as the current one is hardly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinado Internacional del Café 2009[edit]

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

Non-notable event SageGreenRider (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A list of articles on the 2009 version of this event from El Tiempo (Colombia), Colombia's newspaper of record, here. Vrac (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie Sandtorv was kept and this will head the same way, Google brings up tons of sources and as noted below means MUSIC. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jist[edit]

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

The article Natalie Sandtorv is currently in an AfD process. Even if the article manages to pass the AfD, there is definitely no need for two articles on this topic. The info contained here is largely already present in the article about Sandtorv. rayukk | talk 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. -This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The Jist duo meets this by far. Knuand (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if more coverage can be found....if not, 'delete for now and draft and userfy until a better article is achievable. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Unzicker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO/WP:PROF. The claim that his book makes him famous is somewhat dubious. The book was panned by a single reviewer and that seems to be the sum total of its notoriety. Not really good enough for a standalone article. jps (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - and the de: and sv: versions of the article don't have any more to them either - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fringe physicist with one book, and its translation to English. I don't think Woit's revew is good enough for WP:AUTHOR, although it does at least ameliorate the usual problem with fringe subjects, that there are no mainstream sources to balance their claims. And if Woit (no friend of string theory) thinks his work is crankery, it's enough to convince me. There are also more high-profile reviews of his book in Kirkus [5] and the Guardian [6] but the Kirkus one is too shallow to be useful for anything and the Guardian one basically just says "it's trash, don't bother". I don't see how these could be used as the basis for a biography.—David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People associated with fringe theories need substantial coverage. That is not achieved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough substantial information found here. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeraco[edit]

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

No obvious notability. All refs are trivial or peripheral. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I unsurprisingly found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be spam and I agree with the nominator's assessment of the references. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. It would make sense to try again in a year and see what can be left in the article and whether it should be merged in the main one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial site; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is essentially a book of condolence and an indiscriminate collection of quotations from talking heads, most of which are of a boilerplate form that politicians trot out for every tragedy. Of course every Western and Western-friendly nation has condemned the attacks and offered solidarity; it would be impolitick not to. The article makes no attempt to suggest that the soundbites have been discussed as a group by reliable sources, because they haven't, so nor should they by Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy keep - the article currently has other sections too (including one transcluded in the main November 2015 Paris attacks article), and while it's a separate article from that (possibly suggesting that we arbitrarily "put the soundbites together as a group" ourselves), it's really only separate because of length (WP:SPINOUT), otherwise, it could arguably be included in the main article, except for things like WP:NOTQUOTE, but many of the reactions given aren't verbatim quotes anyway. LjL (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it created precisely because there was a consensus against including it in the main article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure (though I think it was you who started requesting, by means of a comment inside the article, that nobody add quotes), but even if there's consensus to keep it out of main, that might simply be because of length, and it's entirely possible that people would have a different opinion when it's separated. Here is where they can express it, I guess. LjL (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I restored the hidden note a few times when it got lost in the melee, but I wasn't the originator of it. With such a high edit rate, I couldn't tell you where it was originally added but it predated my arrival at the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the convergence of international reactions is notable, and I agree that this article contains information that is too long for the main article about the incidents themselves. --Pine^✉ 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is long-term, established practice. A merger was just overwhelmingly rejected. In addition, your deletion rationale is confused and wrong. Firstly, you state "Of course every Western and Western-friendly nation has condemned the attack". Is Syria a "Western or Western-friendly" nation? Secondly, groups of reactions are incredibly notable and have featured together in sources AusLondonder (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The merger was rejected because people thought that these added no useful content to main article, not because it's so informative it deserves its own and is a noteworthy topic by itself. Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP: SNOW Keep Per Ljl, AusLondoner Pine above. There are already innumerable articles on international reaction to world events and there is clear consensus for them. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is circular reasoning that because reaction lists exist therefore more should exist. When major events happen hits people rush to add whatever news they find, and it always gets out of control, but it is much more difficult to remove the excessive material barely related to the actual event. Why is it a separate article? Because a consensus on the main article here (and elsewhere) decided that these reactions become too numerous and provide little to no value to the article, so it's spun off. I do not believe there is a consensus that these statements are actually useful, but that people think that because they form naturally on high-focus articles that they seem indefinitely valid. Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The reactions of heads of state are notable, and an important component needed to understand the aftermath of the attacks. Also, states generally hostile to the West such as Iran and Cuba have condemned the attacks, so the states reacting are far more extensive than just the West. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong to think that Cuba has or has had poor relations with the West. Cuba has had normal diplomatic relations with the UK, France and the rest of Europe for decades and decades. US does not = "the West". Reason for poor US relations was illegal, anti-democratic blockade condemned by every single country in world except US and Israel. Also, many of the reactions are actually from heads of govt eg Australia. PM Turnbull is not head of state. Queen is. Just some point to note AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I fail to understand why knowing that the prime minister of Malaysia was shocked by the attacks and condemns them helps me understand them better. If it's noteworthy that non-Western countries also express condolences, this can be summarized without mentioning exactly what every leader said.
Snow Keep - I'm going to be absolutely honest - I don't see any point to this article and to be honest I'd be happy to see it deleted but.... to be fair we have loads of "International reactions to X" articles and the article is adequately sourced anyway so I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then don't vote to keep just because others are! Just because something has sources doesn't mean it needs its own article.
  - I'm not !voting because others have ... I'm !voting on the notability of the subject and the sources in the article .... –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see this being expanded with reactions of nations towards ISIS using this attack as motivation. We have also been down this road before, as others have said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple listings of what people have to say serve no purpose to the reader. They are obligatory expressions of condolences that as insubstantial quotes are repetitive and unconstructive. Paragraphs summarizing general sentiments and elaborating on actual actions taken is a good way to convey messages as a whole, but it is unencylopedic to just copy and paste whatever unconnected presidents' spokespeople put out for them whenever something bad happens in the world. Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to articles you should think of potential growth. Right now there is a move discussion on the talk-page that would change this article's name to just "Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice, though it's rarely happened for previous events. If it happens with meaningful content expanded on that's great, but I want the useless listings of what every government/president says - the bulk of the page and the reason it was removed from the main article - gone. Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, breaking the quotes down into prose is a cleanup issue though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the entire article; the prose at the top is also on the main. We don't want to break them down, but summarize that people shared condolences. Might as well delete and start over.
Keep: There doesn't seem to be any real reason to delete the article. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim. This is notable. I was going to !vote merge, but the article is too long now. epic genius (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I wonder if there is a way to make the article more than just a collection of quotes, I believe there is but it would require will and discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: There is a way. First, summarize the gist of all the quotes. Then, cut some quotes that you don't need, because most of them are saying the same thing. epic genius (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice if we could remove quotes that are simply "condolecenses" and "we're close to the victims", but ironically, what is currently being deleted are the quotations from government members which give indication about policy, while the ones kept are the ones devoid of any real content. LjL (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks. However, if it's possible, the government policy comments should be re-added. epic genius (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now, they will hopefully stay, since the only editor adamant with their removal went over WP:3RR on the main article. LjL (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reactions are still ongoing and there is room for this article to grow to include more reactions on security and Shengen politics in the EU, any changes in political situation in approach of NATO to the Syrian civil war, etc. -- Callinus (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This event also impacted the talks in Vienna [7]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that there was consensus not to include this content in the main article, this article is a WP:~~POV~~FORK ("Since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." (WP:POVFORK)) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, since it expresses no particular WP:POV, and the consensus may only have existed due to length concerns. This is a WP:SPINOUT per policy. LjL (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like consensus was based on the fact that people didn't want every unrelated condolence listed - on the main article or a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can they possibly be "unrelated"? They're directly about the event. And from heads of state. If anything, they can be trite and devoid of substance, but I'm not sure that's grounds to keep international reactions completely out of Wikipedia...? LjL (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is unrelated. The leader of Taiwan has nothing to do with the event, why do we care about his condolences? Heads of state say things every day, just because they're heads of state does not mean their words must be copied on WP. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What POV are you referring to? If you want celebrations can be added as it was sadly, and disgustingly a response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The view that a listing or some other lengthy treatment of condolences and other peripheral reactions is a noteworthy addition. Granted, this is probably a purely content rather than POV issue (see my modified comment above). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - In my experience this reaction page is quickly getting out-of-hand compared to the earlier tragedies. This is the longest list of little flags I have ever seen. It is already even longer than the Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I also supported renaming the article elsewhere. Much of the content is unconstructive and essentially redundant. However, there are valid reasons for having a WP:SPINOFF/WP:SPINOUT article. Ceosad (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that whether the flags are used or not is really not germane to the question of what to do with the article. Greenshed (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Just simply bring it into the other article... after the fact, if there are legitimate reasons to make it it's own article again down the road, so be it. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article basically exists because people didn't want it in the main article in the first place. There's clear consensus on that. LjL (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE – Article is essentially "my condolences for what happened" repeated 50+ times. It's not encyclopedic in the least. Same goes for other similar articles. The notion of using precedent articles is not helpful here. The actual content needs to be re-evaluated and only substantial actions should be kept. The only viable argument for keeping these types of articles is that they indirectly show the status of international relations. Take that how you will. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWy Keep absurd nomination distorting policy and ignoring precedent, right when the article will be highly visible to the public. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What precedent might that be? Perhaps instead of vague allusions and hyperbole you'd like to explain how dozens of routine statements from politicians aids the reader's understanding of the topic? Or how the contents of the article aren't indiscriminate (good luck with that one!)? Or how the reactions as a body have been discussed in depth by multiple reliable sources? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should read WP:POTENTIAL, take all of the quotes condense them into a paragraph and focus on other areas of the article. You keep focusing on the current state of the article rather than possibly thinking of a way outside of that box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Substantial actions taken by the international community should be kept within the main article for the time being as they are relatively limited and mostly logistical support. Only thing I see coming in the future that could keep this article viable is a potential wave of backlash against Merkel and her open door policy which is clearly starting to backfire...but that's just my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Take all the quote, condense them into one paragraph without all the flags etc. Then delete that paragraph. Whatever's left, like the social media response, condense to a level that gives it due weight (I'd say roughly one small paragraph) and incorporate it into the main article. Likewise with actual, concrete action; if that develops further it can be covered in more detail then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contents are referenced by reliable sources and there is too much here to merge into the main article. I fully accept that some (possibly many) people have no interest in the international reactions. However some people do - especially concerning how countries with which France has not always enjoyed good relations respond. Greenshed (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These article included some leaders responses. It is like the article Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a completely different situation. Humanitarian response is something quantifiable that we can grasp. It includes substantial actions taken by numerous nations to aid those in need, far beyond the endless statements of condolence listed in this article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Countries are offering aid here [8] how much aid qualifies for it to be notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only a handful of nations, including the UK and US, have actually provided aid or put forth concrete statements on what aid they plan on providing. Most statements are vague attached to the messages of condolence (something along the lines of "Our condolences to France; the people of [nation] are willing to provide assistance in the wake of this tragedy."). Unlike natural disasters, this won't require a huge international humanitarian movement for recovery so aid won't likely be a large aspect. The bigger story, for lack of a better word, will be the political side attached to the refugee crisis as well as how France moves forward with Syria. All this information, as of now, can easily be contained within the main article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I for one was hoping the article would be more devoted to all the high-profile public displays of the French tricoleur on buildings in world capitals, etc., and perhaps that's a way for the article to grow. There's no doubt in my mind that the international reaction easily meets our notability guidelines. I can see the article being useful down the road for general public as well as students who want a summary of the international reaction to this event, all in one place. As for substantial actions, we are still in the early hours of this. Poland has already closed its borders to refugees, there's one. World leaders are meeting now in Turkey. Let's give this time. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I never understood the reasoning for keeping an article like this. These are generic statements of support of France and we don't need to catalog them. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because there are a lot of other similar articles like this, but I overall agree with HJ Mitchell. Kiwifist (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable and reliably sourced. Verwoerd (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL Keep It certainly seems notable enough. More importantly, this article is getting a lot of views: 20,000 just yesterday [9]. (By comparison Elias Abraham Rosenberg got about 10,000 yesterday when it was featured on the main page.) It's kind of embarrassing to have the big deletion tag at the top of the article, and leaving this open 7 days for the sake of bureaucracy isn't going to help anything. Close this for now, and then after things have calmed down and the pages have stopped being renamed and merged we can revisit this if needed. ~Awilley (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any major catastrophe nowadays attracts statements of compassion and support by international leaders as a matter of course. Reproducing them at length violates WP:NOTNEWS. To the limited extent such statements are out of the ordinary, they should be mentioned in the main article. Sandstein 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for consistency with International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting in which many fewer people died. If it isn't kept, reactions should certainly be integrated into the main article for the same reason. 2601:600:8500:5B1:4869:CAA2:C6C4:492F (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many similar articles HERE.
Keep Of course such material is unencyclopedic but retaining this article helps the encyclopedia by helping protect the main article. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are lots of similar articles on Wikipedia, also, it's very sourced anyway. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 12:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were similar concerns raised with the existence of the Je Suis Charlie article, recognizing that the event has provoked a phenomenal amount of global attention constitutes its own entry; the separate nations' responses are critical to the overall implications of the event, but are far too lengthy to surmise on the entry for the attacks themselves. Curlymanjaro (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dreadful, worthless garbage per nom and unencyclopedic per Sandstein. Probably a strategic keep for now though; this article can function as a septic tank for this material to keep it off the main article. Once a few weeks have passed, we can strip out the worst garbage and all the non-notable quotes and see if anything is left. --John (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I tell ta, we've really pissed off the admins with this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I would point out that I am not acting as an admin here, but as a long-term editor who knows what Wikipedia is and is not. --John (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Your comments are disgusting, cruel and embarrassing. To suggest condolences belong in a septic tank is vile. Also, if you are planning on destroying this article in defiance of the community in a few weeks please note strong resistance will occur. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the drama and the near-personal attacks please. LjL (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:LjL - who are you referring to? AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very relevant to the issues of modern civilization. Terror attacks have a huge impact on humanity and the reaction of others, whether it be your "superior", equal, or lesser, is of the greatest importance due to the fact that it can lead to the moral values of individuals. Relationships between countries are essential and this is something that the general public would need to have access to. Reactions are a critical part of modern history. --Cody (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.236.64 (talk) [reply]
Speedy keep - this nomination is part of the agenda by certain people who feel these are too "biased" and "feel good" for Wikipedia. Notability is what matters here as always - from the Pope's response saying the attacks are part of World War III to Obama's statement affirming that France is the United States' oldest ally, these messages receive significant mass media coverage and analysis. They are most definitely of encyclopedic value - wouldn't you like to know what the Russian tsar had to say after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Not to mention these attacks are perpetrated "in the name" of Islam - how is not important to note the official response by predominantly Muslim nations and mainstream Muslim groups? And they're not all platitudes but included comments about closing the Schengen zone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is useful, people may want to know what Bashar al-Assad said about the attacks, or what Hezbollah said. It is also well sourced, and is notable. The #PrayForParis and the Peace for Paris symbol is also a bit reminiscent of Je suis Charlie is it not? Seagull123 Φ 14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - If for no other reason than it's so soon after the event. I remember at some point there was even a proposed policy about waiting for the dust to settle. I would agree that a large majority of the reactions on the list are really just meaningless platitudes (e.g. "we strongly condemn the attacks and express our condolences."), but there are some with a bit more substance. For example the Syrian government draws a comparison to the terrorism they have experienced, and Russia calls for the attacks to inspire more cooperation against terrorism. Perhaps in the future the article might be trimmed down to the point where it could comfortably fit within the main article, but I don't think it's best to try to do that right now. Also, a more centralized discussion might be useful to determine criteria for what merits inclusion as an "international reaction." I could see where it might make sense to only detail the reactions with more substantive content, and then for the others just say something like: "Countries A, B, C, D, E....and Z condemned the attacks and expressed their condolences." -Helvetica (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When will they (User:John, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Cyclonebiskit) nominate Reactions to the September 11 attacks or Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks or International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 or International reactions to the 2015 Chapel Hill shootings for deletion? AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But but but those topics are about things that happened in the USA! How can you compare them? —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, User:Wikimandia. That's the problem, here. This didn't happen in the Grand Ole U S of A. In happened in the Old World. It's not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOWBALL CLOSE this, someone , for pity's sake. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep is it really necessary to explain this? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M32 motorway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A4032 road[edit]

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

A very short road. I can't find any RS to meet GNG — Rod ^talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, as there's nothing here that adds anything additional to the table there. It's possible to expand these A-road stubs into viable articles, but the sources need to exist, and there aren't enough landmarks on this road to make it worthwhile having a separate article. ‑ iridescent 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN road. Not a useful search term, so no redirect. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Some of these articles (like A1232 road) turn out to be notable with coaching inns, highwaymen and WWII bomb sites when you look at actual history rather than a random number a bored civil servant chose out of thin air to plonk on a sign one day, but not this one. Alternatively, Iridescent's idea of having a bunch of street articles put together rather than separately under a common sign is not a bad one, but you can't get that from a few hundred yards of an approach road. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this may be notable but no sources have been provided. It's a useful search term, consistent with existing redirects to the list, many of which have never been articles. Peter James (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not having sources isn't a reason to delete an article, but not being able to find or believe any could be cited is. A better search term is probably "newfoundland circus bristol", though even that brings up little more than traffic reports and property acquisitions, routine coverage, basically. Dr. Blofeld has been known to work miracles in this area, but if he can pull this one off I'll buy him a beer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333, I would say that keeping it as a redirect does no harm, and potentially is useful to readers. It's perfectly possible to imagine someone hearing "the A4032 is closed for roadworks" on the radio, and looking up where the A4032 actually is to see if it affects them, in which case the redirect is serving a genuine and legitimate purpose. (As I may have mentioned once or twice, I consider WP:ITSUSEFUL one of the most bone-headedly stupid essays on Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be useful to the readers, and if something is potentially useful and not violating any policy there's no reason for it not to exist.) ‑ iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly expect a local traffic report to be the most likely context where a typical reader would hear about this (eg: "Really heavy congestion coming into Bristol because of a breakdown closing one lane of the A4032, that's Newfoundland Circus towards the House of Fraser, avoid the area if you possibly can"), in which case would it not make more sense to redirect to Transport_in_Bristol#Local_road_network. A reader in that instance is probably going to be crestfallen if they are taken to a page of numbers, wouldn't you say? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the road is only really used for entry and exit to and from the M32 motorway, of which it is really a continuation but without motorway regulations, it might be best to redirect to the motorway article.— Rod ^talk 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, better to redirect to M32, which has more information than in the list. Transport in Bristol doesn't mention this road. Peter James (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M32 motorway works for me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are better founded in guidelines and policy. With a few exceptions, the "keep" opinions are mere votes or appeals to notability (which isn't in question), but do not even address the policy-based arguments against retention, i.e., the concerns of original research by synthesis, and the duplication of content in Terrorism in France and List of terrorist incidents in France. Sandstein 17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism crisis in France[edit]

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

This definitely appears to be original research: the sources used do not talk about an "Islamic terrorism crisis in France". They verify the facts of the attacks but do not talk about them collectively, so this article is WP:SYNTH. Basically: notability as one event/phenomenon is not established. Best to have two separate articles (January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and November 2015 Paris attacks) that reference each other. Loeba (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. It also says "The Islamic terrorism crisis in France refers to" like there's an official name for it or something. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we do not delete articles simply because they are controversial. Clearly notable, good sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research: no secondary sources refer to this group of different attacks calling them "Islamic terrorism crisis in France" or saying they constitute an ongoing armed conflict. Nykterinos (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This has been ongoing for months now, and even though most of the attacks have been foiled, that does not mean that it should be deleted. Perhaps the title could be reworded. This article makes it clear that this is WP:NOTABLE [10]--Franz Brod (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue though, nobody is arguing that the events aren't notable. Look at the deletion rationale more closely. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an original synthesis. - SimonP (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe with more information such as statistics and miscellaneous facts and such, this could be a great article. Delete - Never mind. I agree that this does seem like original research, and that it's superfluous. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's already an article about Terrorism in France. I haven't seen the term "terrorism crisis" on the news etc, so it looks like original research. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - the article name doesn't seem consistent with our usual conventions for articles about a series of related events, but the information itself is well-sourced. Cynical (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how it can be regarded as well-sourced. At this moment there's a total of 6 sources, all of which describe separate attacks but do not discuss them together. There is nothing to support the idea of an ongoing crisis; yes, France has had several terrorist incidents in 2015 but unless/until media outlets start talking of them as a connected, ongoing problem then Wikipedia can't be the first to decide and declare this. --Loeba (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge useful content to terrorism in France, which which it is redundant to. 108.52.36.49 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing new, quite a lot of original research, unsourced. Skycycle (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that we have a whole schema List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL and related categories, which is a lot more focused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the synthesis, this is redundant to terrorism in France. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with User:NinjaRobotPirateand others. Why draw a line at 2015 and break this off as a separate article from terrorism in France? There were Islamist attacks in 2012, too. If it's because this is a distinct ISIL campaign that's a legitimate reason for a separate article, of course. But then we'd need to move the article to a new name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But the January attacks weren't claimed by IS (while the November ones were) so we can't talk about a "distinct campaign". --Loeba (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, also there's no need for this article since we already have Terrorism in France.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Ceosad (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is different from Terrorism in France because it is about a conflict with a specific set of groups taking place during a specific time. They are connected while all terrorism in French history isn't connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.68.210 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 73.247.68.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claims of significance and notability entirely consist of OR and WP:SYNTH. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This article can and should be as important in talking about the French terrorist attacks as the 9/11 article is in talking about American terrorist attacks.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable and reliably sourced. Verwoerd (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable.GreyShark (dibra) 05:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of sources for "crisis" - The Guardian. There are however multiple more on "terror campaign" like CNN.GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a good standalone argument to make in a deletion discussion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the concerns that are stated above and in the article's talk page, the Belligerents table shown in it, explaining who against whom, is a glare example of erroneous over simplification and un-encyclopedic approach. MarkYabloko 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and concocted interlinkage. WWGB (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because this duplicates the Terrorism in France article Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. Sources do not specify 'crisis.' Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename back to Islamic terrorism in France as umbrella article for Category:Islamic terrorism in France. 95.133.216.22 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Synth. Someone has confused Wikipedia with The Fox News Channel. --Calton | Talk 11:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm obviously at WP:AVOIDCOI here, but I can't comprehend how some people can go on here and say that over 150 civilians murdered this year alone due to terrorist activities in a developed country is not a crisis. France is even in a state of nationwide emergency, for God's sake. For those saying it's "basically" the same as Terrorism in France, that page is just a list of terrorist attacks in France since the 1950s. It doesn't even point out the recent wave of Islamic terrorist attacks or why they're happening. Plus, multiple sources do mention it to be a crisis, and specifically use that word. HalloweenNight (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one source has been added so far that specifically talks about a crisis in France (I just removed some others that talk about a general world crisis, so don't support this very specific article). And that source [11] isn't exactly the strongest, what is "RT"? I would definitely want to see more, better quality sources before accepting that the article should stay. --Loeba (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - RT is only one of the biggest news providers in the world with millions of followers and billions of YouTube views (Actually #1 TV news network on YouTube). I can't believe you've never heard of them. HalloweenNight (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, but based on our article it is a pretty controversial source. --Loeba (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - RT is Russian government propaganda, and of no value whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Fireflyfanboy. --Article editor (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --74.190.105.14 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — 74.190.105.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. We need more WP:RS sources linking these attacks. RT (TV network), the only source that I can find supporting this narrative of a unified series of attacks, is a Putin mouthpiece with a strong incentive to push this POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islamic terrorism in France is better name. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to Keep and Move (& redefine) the article to Islamic terrorism in France (or Islamist terrorism in France. This would be similar to, but narrower than Terrorism in France and would presumably begin with the 7 February 1984 killing of Gholam Ali Oveisi by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah and the 25 July 1995 attack on the Gare de Saint-Michel – Notre-Dame (8 dead) by the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and covers the same ground that Terrorism in France should. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Islamic terrorism sadly in France isn't a new thing if you are talking about the current issue then we have November 2015 Paris attacks, if you are talking about Historical events there is Terrorism in France. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deem this synthesis. Unfortunately, even before the said instances, there were the Merah attacks in Toulouse and Algerian attacks in Paris. The article can be concisely re-worked into Terrorism in France '''tAD''' (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly with tAD and with Knowledgekid87. Terrorism in France is an omnibus. The need is for an article focuses on the threat of Islamism]], or, as Hillary Clinton prefers, jihad to France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for original research, and because no one is referring to it as a "Islamic Terrorism Crisis" (yet). The article on the attacks themselves should be sufficient for now, barring any more...User:The Almightey Drill

"barring any more?" We have had enough and more to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so what we are discussing here is the name of the article. Not whether the article is on a notable topic. I prefer Islamic terrorism in France, but the idea of having an article about the jihadist attacks on France, (and on the French citizens in the jihadist movement) is valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to something more appropriate, like the above-suggested "Jihadist terrorism in France". It can be considered a list with additional summaries, which does not fall under WP:SYNTH; at most, it just needs to show that all listed events are Jihadist or Islamic attacks. LjL (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. The creator of this article has combined different incidents carried out by different groups with different motives into a single "conflict", presumably to make a point.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP changing my vote now that title has been changed from Islamic terrorism crisis in France (which did entail WP:SYNTH). The new title: Islamic terrorism attacks in France, has a definition that is as clear as war, terrorism and politics get: terrorist attacks with Islamist motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you !vote "keep and rename/move" before? I see an alarming number of articles where people ask for deletion on the grounds that they could be improved. That's not what deletion is supposed to be about... LjL (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title away from crisis changed evaluation. Crisis was WP:SYNTH: there were not sources to support notability of a "crisis". There are sources/notability in plenty about Islamic terrorists attacking France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it all seems interrelated and this article prevents clutter about each other attack on each attacks article. Also, some of the articles about the most recent attack have been talking about a 'trend' or 'spike' in related incidents, which indicates WP:PERSISTANCE/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. That said, some of this article started out as original research. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--85.165.230.6 (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Claims of significance and notability entirely consist of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS with no secondary sources, no such term as "terrorism crisis in France" in the media. The historical article Terrorism in France already exists and there's no reason for there to be a separate article with an over simplified and unencyclopedic approach of combining different unconnected incidents implemented by different groups with different motives into a single article. The content should be concisely merged into Terrorism in France. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article title has been changed, your objection no longer applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Major DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AFD - Please note that title/topic has been changed to: Islamic terrorism attacks in France, making the large number of WP:SYNTH objections above irrelevant. This is game-changing, but highly irregular. Not sure how to deal this development. In addition to the troubling fact that the most recent iVoters obviously voted without looking at the article, MOST of what is discussed above no longer applies to the article under its new title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the title may have changed but the content is still the same. It still states that there is a conflict between the French state and Jihadists which started in December 2014 as a spillover Syrian Civil War and all the the incidents it lists, including the Charlie Hebdo attack, are part of this conflict. It's still WP:SYNTH.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The new name changes things a bit, but I disagree that it makes all the objections above invalid. The content remains exactly the same, and I still think it's an article that decides to link together events without much precedence or justification to do so. And it makes it even more redundant to Terrorism in France. Perhaps that could have a subsection on "Islamic terrorism" where this article could be merged. --Loeba (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in France is a list of truly motley attacks (radical left, nationalist, Islamist) . This is an article about specifically Islamic terrorism in France, a coherent and separate topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth merging, though, then it shouldn't be deleted, per WP:MAD. As to the WP:SYNTH, I'm wondering, what makes it more SYNTH than the Terrorism in France article itself (assuming SYNTH applies)? LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'd still preference a flat-out deletion, I'm just trying to show some flexibility...I wouldn't object to the option of merging it. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing game-changing about this, and certainly nothing "highly irregular". Articles for deletion are (or, should be) judged based on what they could become, not on what they were at the time deletion was proposed. LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Disagree with "Major DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AFD", for the same reasons already stated by obi2canibe^{talk contr} and Loeba (talk) ----MarkYabloko 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic terrorism in France is a coherent topic, and not a new one. Take a look, for example, at this Voice of America article from a year ago: [12].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's definitely the best source presented so far. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rachael Ray guests[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the same article creator who gave us List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show guests, I see. Which is also at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has the same issues (if not moreover) than List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show guests. As I said in the other discussion, this is just of running list of information you would find on a List of Rachael Ray episodes page. There isn't one of those. That'd be a better place to start than keeping this one. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and suggest that List of Rachael Ray episodes not be created. Useless list of talk show guests on long-running show that cannot hope to be well-sourced in any sensible manner; if you're in America, a mass media entertainer/cook or have a blue link, you've most likely been on this show. 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per the specific guidelines for politicians Errant ^(chat!) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickley (UKIP)[edit]

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

Not notable enough as yet. A twice-defeated parliamentary candidate with no other notability. If he wins the by-election we can create a page for him then, but not yet. Frinton100 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having created this article, the intention as always is to enhance Wiki, so slightly surprised such swift attempted suppression of info in relation to Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015. Many more less relevant articles in Wiki, I should suggest. M Mabelina (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bickley clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as the only coverage he gets is related to him being an election candidate, which is not notable in itself and there do not seem to be any other claims to notability. The creator's argument that there are "many more less relevant articles in Wiki" may well be true, but that's a textbook WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and is not a reason for keeping this one. Valenciano (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN, as is standard practice in these cases. If he's elected, an article will be created. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only just created the article & spend more time arguing than adding - please reserve judgement before jumping on the bandwagon. HELP! M Mabelina (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is useful material about Mr Bickley, I would suggest you add it to the by-election article page. Standard Wikipedia policy is to cover candidates on the relevant election article until such time as they are notable in their own right. Meanwhile, if you think the article for Jim McMahon (politician) is inappropriate, you are free to propose it for deletion: follow the guidance at WP:AFD. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POLITICIAN. Nothing in his business background[13] stands out either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - looking forward to something positive to say about such edits - rather than engaging in internal discussions about minutiae - I've recently had the same about the law of arms & it takes ages to convince (because once people openly state their position they generally don't like to back down - please wait a while & take stock rather than jump on the bandwagon - unless of course there is a particular reason not immediately apparent as to why info should be suppressed rather than enhanced... Appreciated M Mabelina (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a repository for political candidates. What you call "suppression" is what we consider maintaining standards. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cllr Jim McMahon[edit]

[COPIED FROM User talk:Frinton100] (view no answer as to poss Labour POV):

Hi Frinton - from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others? Also if Jim McMahon is notable enough, which I have no doubt in believing, why then try to dumb down his entry by persistent deletion of the OBE image? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Other candidates at Oldham by-election[edit]

RSVP

I'm not sure what the meaning of the "Attention" section above is - however, with regards to the OBE - I did remove it earlier, but I saw you put it back and I wasn't too bothered. I think it looks a bit silly, but fine. I hadn't realised I had removed it a second time; I have now moved it to a more sensible location. I am dubious to be honest about McMahon's notability under WP:POLITICIAN - municipal politicians are borderline cases. But please, for the third time in a few hours - can we discuss article content in the appropriate place, and not on my talk page. Please stick to the MOS. And please do not post unsolicited images to my talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I think you & I (& of course others) have a reasonable grasp of Wiki eligibility, politics, current affairs as well as the English language. Thank you & let's get back to helpful collaborative edits like before (intro of muchos Talk pages - like committees - never get anything sorted!). Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Jim McMahon (politician) Talk Page - please direct It's on the "talk" tab, top left, on his article Frinton100 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Your link above doesn't work - so let's leave excessive discussion (unless you really would prefer otherwise) in favour of enhancing the content of Wiki's articles. "Attention", I amended to "Other" since it seems to me quite lopsided to focus on Jim McMahon without any attention at all on the others, although I have made a small attempt to redress the balance by creating an article about John Bickley, the principal contender in this former Labour seat (unless I am thoroughly mistaken)! I note you decided to flag up the John Bickley article for deletion almost immediately upon its creation - so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a Labour supporter/sympathiser, perhaps you could remove those notices? What was the reason for your stating OBEs look a "bit silly" thereby reducing much Wiki factual info to be joke status unless you were in your eyes disdaining Cllr McMahon himself, OR alternatively dumbing down Cllr Jim McMahon's entry so as to try make him appear less privileged - despite achievement being a good thing - for some presumed electoral advantage? A simple explanation to this mystery will suffice - many thanks in advance.... M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we please stick to the matter in hand - i.e. whether Bickley meets the criteria for notability on wikipedia - rather than resorting to personal attacks. I will deal briefly with these on my talk page. Details about McMahon's article should be discussed on his talk page. As mentioned above, if you think he fails the notability criteria then you can deal with it in the appropriate manner. I'm not sure - I think he's borderline.

Back to Bickley, wikipedia is not the BBC. We do not have to give equal "airtime" (or perhaps "article inches") to all of the candidates in a by-election, or even to the ones we think are going to finish in the top two. The criteria for notability of politicians is described at WP:POLITICIAN and these make clear that simply being a candidate in a parliamentary election is not noteworthy enough. There is nothing in any other area of his life either that would confer notability at this stage. If he wins on 3rd Dec, of course this will change. Frinton100 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is useless in its present state. SOXROX (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article should be moved to John Bickley (politician), following standard Wikipedia naming conventions. Is it OK for me to move it while an AfD is going on? Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As per WP:EDITATAFD, to avoid confusion, I'll not move the article now. If there is a keep decision, I presume the community will then favour a move as suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:POLITICIAN. He hasn't done anything notable. He's standing in a by-election, anyone can do that. This is an article about a non-notable person and it should be deleted. Also the title of this article is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. IJA (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this could just be bias against UKIP, if he was a Lib-Lab-Con candidate he'd definitely have been included by now, he is becoming a senior member of the UKIP party having stood in Heywood and Middleton in the GE and the 2014 by election and also stood in Wythenshawe, we have lots of information about him, and he is becoming a true face of the party in the north. I remember when this listing was previously deleted last year, but now he is standing in Oldham West and Royton, he does deserve a Wikipedia page, as simply he is a senior member of UKIP. (Z2a (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry but that is a load of absolute bullshit. It seems to me you aren't aware of our policies which states that unelected candidates for office are not notable. Simply being a perennial, unelected candidate or carpetbagger does not equate to notability. Regarding "bias against UKIP" nonsense you allege, in conspiratorial tones, that if Bickley was a "Lib-Lab-Con" candidate (no such party exists, by the way) he would be granted an article. Let us test your theory. Lets see whether unelected candidate for major parties in recent by-elections have articles:

Christine Emmett, Conservative, Corby 2012: No
Jill Hope, Liberal Democrat, Corby 2012: No
Craig Williams, Conservative, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: No (Not until election as MP for Cardiff North)
Bablin Molik, Liberal Democrats, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: No
Luke Nicholas, Plaid Cymru (finished ahead of UKIP), Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: No
Andrew Stranack, Conservative, Croydon North 2012: No
Winston McKenzie, UKIP, Croydon North 2012: Ironically Yes (There go your accusations of an anti-UKIP bias)
Michael Payne, Labour, Newark 2014: No
David Watts, Liberal Democrats, Newark 2014: No
Roger Helmer, UKIP, Newark 2014: Yes (Because he is an MEP)
Naushabah Khan, Labour, Rochester and Strood 2014: No
Geoff Juby, Liberal Democrats, Rochester and Strood 2014: No
Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative, Rochester and Stood 2014: No (Not until she gained the seat at the general election)

Hopefully you will now admit that UKIP suffers from no "bias" AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie (2nd nomination) is now up. Might I also remind everyone of the assumption of good faith? Bondegezou (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, very poor title. Secondly, very poor arguments in favour of keeping from the above editors, whining about bias and "much less relevant" articles existing (if they do, please nominate their removal immediately). Thirdly being a perennial candidate (some less generous souls may say carpetbagger) for election is not a claim to notability, excluding in exceptional circumstances. I could stand in three by-elections. Does that make me notable? AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, it certainly reads like a promotional piece in its current form. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has never been elected into any position of power, nor is he a major idealogue internally in UKIP. Perennial candidates can become notable in cases like Mackenzie, who stood for decades for practically every party. A few candidatures in the last couple of years means nothing '''tAD''' (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do have articles on politicians who have not been elected, but this is usually because they have achieved some notability (or notoriety) outside of politics or have been significant players within their parties or organisations. This does not apply here - he is just a failed candidate. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To add to my last point - Why is Jim Mcmahon worthy of a page and John isn't? Jim has no special relevance more than John other than being the leader of Oldham Council, and as far as I'm aware Council leaders shouldn't automatically get a page on here, if they do, why doesn't Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell have a page? If this page goes, I can't see any reason warranting Jim McMahon, who is simply just a councillor to have a page too. (Z2a (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Z2a (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Just to point out that you have "voted" twice. Emeraude (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Jim McMahon is a borderline case. WP:POLITICIAN states that a municipal politician is not automatically notable but is not not-notable because they are only a municipal politician. McMahon is leader of the Labour group on the LGA and is also an NEC member. In addition to his council leadership, I think that just qualifies him for an article, but only just. Frinton100 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks Jim McMahon (politician) should be deleted, then the appropriate thing is to go start an AfD for that page. We shouldn't keep this article because that article exists: if that article shouldn't exist, then two wrongs do not make a right. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being defeated twice, hating science and loving golf are not signs of notability at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's no Edwin Scrymgeour yet, although he may yet be at some point.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep WP:POLITICIAN is an alternative to GNG, not additional requirements. There are multiple in depth sources about the topic, he meets GNG, and the article should be kept. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false argument. Every single candidate for every major election receives media coverage. We cannot, nor should we, have a page about them all in a credible encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that if the Labour candidate considered to be sufficiently notable then so is John Bickley, especially as the next MP for the constituency will be either one of them. It is not for a very small number of Wikipedia insiders to decide who is "important enough" in the eyes of the general public, Wikipedia is supposed to serve the needs of everybody, not the needs of a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.214.26 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think the Labour candidate is not notable, you can suggest that article be deleted. Whether we have an article for the Labour candidate (and there was an article for this person before he was ever the candidate) is a separate matter to whether this article should exist. No-one is saying that Bickley's candidacy is not important: it is, and information about him and his candidacy is on the by-election article page. The question is whether the best way to organise Wikipedia is to have a separate page about him as well. We don't usually do that, as explained at WP:NPOL. If you think that approach is wrong, you could go to the Talk page there and put forward your position. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Economist says in an article this week the western world needs to really worry if he is elected because it will start a new era of right wing populist anti immigrant sentiment. I hope he loses but I have a feeling he won't. Irrespective this afd is redundant in my opinion, refs such as this and those in the article mean he passes GNG. Szzuk (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this article [14]? If so I think it's arguable that is not significant coverage, given the article is about much broader topics. And still, it only relates to his candidacy for one election and candidacy alone is not enough.Frinton100 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 full paragraphs about him directly in the full article. This isn't arguable - it is in depth coverage in a cast iron reliable and verifiable source. Szzuk (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think two paras is exactly in depth, and the fact remains it is entirely related to his candidacy. Many other candidates have had similar things written about them in the heat of a by-election campaign, but it doesn't confer notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Bickley does not have such previous notability from anything I can see. Frinton100 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPOL guidelines are really just an application of WP:1E, which is the idea that if a person is notable because of a particular event, then we should have an article on the event, not the person. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as he seems unlikely notable and the current article is not convincing of any better. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. If and when he does something notable that provides significant coverage (such as winning the seat or developing a hobby more interesting than "walking", as the article currently indicates), the article can be rewritten. Graham (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only notability is political campaigning, they don't qualify. This applies to all parties and all countries. I can see nothing worthy of an article in this case. Nolan is a border-line case - he definitely passes CSD A7 for significance, but as to notability, I'm not sure. But it is irrelevant anyway, because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Peridon (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unless I've missed something that's presented here or in the article, everything is news coverage about him. Recreate if someone finds significant coverage in secondary sources, but remember that news reports from the time of an event (including a candidate's standing for election) are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. its accepted we dont cover him until he wins an election. Personally, I think that wrong--major party candidates for national office should beconsidered notable, or else we're biasing political coverage with an incumbent advantage, but this is not the consensus view here, and I'm not going to oppose it at individual cases when I know there;'s no likelihood of getting anywhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per standards.AnotherAnonymous (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott (Louisiana politician)[edit]

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

DA of a single county. This does not imply notability. Refs are either routine notices or funeral tributes, which aren otoriously unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better and convincingly enough improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, state court judge as well as DA, past president of state DA association. Major political figure in Shreveport. Fully sourced article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (He was also an ad-hoc appellate judge on the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Shreveport. Could qualify as local politician too with the sources available here.) Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Billy Hathorn. Sources establish basic notability per GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the actual judgeships are "Caddo District Court judgeship, ... a relief juvenile court judge in Caddo Parish and an ad-hoc appellate judge. In other words, a county judge, a temporary juvenile court judge, and a temporary apointee to a higher court, not a regular member. Those are not notable positions. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Louisiana 1st Judicial District Court, based in Caddo Parish; He was defeated for circuit court but served under appointment to fill in for missing judges.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. A/c NPEOPLE, judges who hold statewide office are generally notable. I do not think a district court is a state-wide office. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Few reliable sources. Not notable except in a hyper-local sense. AusLondonder (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can qualify as 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage, the specific line in the rules. He even served ad hoc on a circuit court though his political offices were senior district judge and district attorney. Also inductee of the Louisiana Justice Hall of Fame. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor local politician doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO, much like scores of other articles created by this article's creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jamie" used virtually the same line four minutes earlier in his proposal to delete James Garvey (Louisiana politician): "Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability, much like hundreds of other articles created by this user. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)" Can the article be analyzed in four minutes? Or even found that quickly? Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BIO says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Subject meets all of these criteria. Could also qualify as Major local politician with considerable press coverage. DA's are major local figures; many have statewide recognition. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't take much time given that you've been creating articles about non-notable Louisiana people for years with no sources beyond obits and other hyperlocal coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and sources provided are either mentions, or obituaries, which in my opinion do not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trustly[edit]

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

Uncertain notability, in its current state. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some third party sources exist--Conan The Barbarian (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user conan the barbarians third party sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Jimfbleak: Could you please restore the article. This AFD still haven't closed and there seems to be no clear consensus to delete the article at the moment. Please revert your deletion so that we can continue the discussion. Cheers! Jim Carter 17:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am restoring the article. This was obviously a mistake of some kind. The discussion is only hours old, and this AfD discussion was not actually closed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this immediate deletion now and, MelanieN, are you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaskapes as well? SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was going to restore it too, but then I realized it had been tagged for speedy - A7 and G11. The system tagged it as "per AfD" but it was actually a speedy deletion. I have closed that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN That's what I thought and saw and was also thinking of closing it but because I wasn't sure of its history. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure myself what happened here. I can't see my deletion in the history, although it's in my logs. It looks as if I simply forgot to put a rationale, since the AFD comment would have been pre-entered by the AFD nomination. Incidentally, it's not necessarily the case that AFDs have to run their course, since a discussion (usually) about notability sometimes misses, eg, copyright violation or obvious COI spamming. Apologies anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potential for speedy, nothing wrong in Jimfbleak's actions. Its creator, User:Trustly Group AB, was blocked for having a promotional username and creating this CoI article – if someone else thinks the company is notable, then they should create the article. Absolutely nothing worth keeping as is. Jared Preston (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Uncertain notability, in its current state" per nom is an understatement: it's a one-line, unreferenced article! Nothing to be found in a general web search but press releases and routine funding announcements (Conan The Barbarian, please tell us exactly what search results are relevant if such exist). HighBeam turns up in-passing mentions in an identical story put up by two newspapers under titles "United Kingdom : Opening Up the Online Payments Market, So as to Reduce Fees and Fraud Risks" and "Opening Up the Online Payments Market, So as to Reduce Fees and Fraud Risks". Non-notable in the extreme. – Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the substantial improvements Happy Fox has made to the article since anyone !voted, I thought I would ping @Conan The Barbarian, BabbaQ, Jared Preston, SwisterTwister, and Brianhe: to see whether they would like to also add to the article's expansion and/or sourcing (in the case of those previously in favor of Keep) or revise their opinion based on the new version of the article (in the case of those previously in favor of Delete). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sources added were two routine directory listings (Bloomberg, Crunchbase) and a press release, I see no reason to do so. Brianhe (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing, and current sources don't come close to it passing either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Trustly: «La tarjeta de crédito no tiene sentido para pagar online»". ABC (in Spanish). 2015-04-15. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
2. Lewan, Mats (2015-05-12). "Trustly vill att vi betalar direkt från bankkontot". Ny Teknik (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
3. Erlandsson, Adam (2014-11-04). "Trustly tar in 200 miljoner". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trustly to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the new sources added by Cunard. I may not be able to read all of those sources, but the Wikipedia articles about the publications allow for evaluation of their reliability as sources, and they seem to meet WP:RS. Nice work, Cunard! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough non-PR and non-earning report sources for notability. Esquivalience ^t 15:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Although I would not inherently object if an independent, non-SPA were to recreate it with a stronger array of reliable references. Citobun (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Although I would not inherently object if an independent, non-SPA were to recreate it with a stronger array of reliable references", Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
As a non-COI editor, I've reviewed the article and find the article written neutrally. If you disagree, please point out the specific parts that you find promotional so I can fix them.
The articles from ABC, Ny Teknik, and Svenska Dagbladet are very strong sources that provide substantial coverage about the subject.
Cunard (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Cole and the People of Distinction Broadcasting Network[edit]

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a writer and radio host, sourced almost entirely to primary (own webpage, a press release) and unreliable (Blogspot) sources. The only source here that lifts him even slightly into the realm of reliable source coverage is a blurb on the Huffington Post — but that's not enough to get a person into Wikipedia if it's the best you can do for sourcing. There's certainly enough of a potential claim of notability here that he would probably qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but nobody, regardless of their notability claim, ever gets to keep an article that's sourced this badly or that's written as a public relations profile rather than an encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article moved to Al Cole (talk show host). ansh 666 21:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's far too promotional right now. clpo13_(talk) 21:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both...Al Cole (talk show host) and Al Cole and the People of Distinction Broadcasting Network per nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both There's no way this person has ever worked for CBS Radio (if they were their CBS Radio-hosted bio would be on top of Google); this is someone who has probably bought time under a brokered programming arrangement on a CBS Radio station, then takes money for C and Z-listers to be featured in a fluff show/segment hosted by them in a major market, usually on the weekends when few listen to the radio. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better than a few blogs, nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. So highly promotional that I closing this as speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogini Anantanitya[edit]

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

The article more sounds like a autobiography/"low-key" advertisment then an article WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding significant coverage, or any really. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has gotten it right. There is no support for the relatively low claims of notability. Does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stonewall Democrats. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Democrats of Arizona[edit]

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

State-level chapter of a national organization, featuring neither enough substance nor enough reliable sourcing to make it notable in its own right as a separate standalone topic from the parent org. Delete, or redirect to National Stonewall Democrats. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stonewall Democrats of Arizona are allied with National Stonewall however they are an entirely separate organization with neither answerable to the other. They do NOT have a "parent org". If you delete this page then you MUST delete all regional Equality pages such as Equality Arizona, Equality California, Equality Florida & etc.Robert Rowlkey (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS regarding your second sentence. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. I see that National Stonewall Democrats does mention state chapters, but at the same time this organization's official webpage states that it is an "autonomous organization" with no ties to any national organization. Of course, reliable sourcing still applies.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own rule of thumb for "multiple" sources is a minimum of three, and the article has that already. Again, despite a vague claim in the national Stonewall org article that all state organizations are chapters I don't see any indication of that here, and why WP:BRANCH should apply. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just to quote, in addition to the declaration that this is a completely "autonomous organization", the official site also states that they are registered "with the federal government as a 527 organization" and can "receive donations from any American citizen." So the nomination rationale that this is but a local chapter should be disregarded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and Merge into National Stonewall Democrats. this newly created stub is less well sourced than it looks. The first source, in a real daily paper, the Arizona Daily Star begins: "A Tucson group is trying to revive the Stonewall Democrats of Arizona..." and that's the best source on the page. I didn't read the source #2, in something called Echo Magazine because it required clicking through 66 pages. I am unfamiliar with observerweekly.com, source #3, a source that contains informative material on this fledgling political group. The last 2 sources are less impressive. This is very little material to base an article on, but the real problem is that this may be all that exists. At least, I did search and found nothing beyond what is already on the page. On the other hand, Stonewall Democrats is something of a brand. Other regional Stonewall groups have External Links on the National Stonewall Democrats page. I suggest that the material here be moved to a state section for Arizona on the National Stonewall Democrats page (which is in need of updating), which is a very short page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Stonewall Democrats page, making it into a good home for a redirect. @Ddcm8991, Shawn in Montreal, and QuiteUnusual: Went to ping page creator, discovered that he has been blocked. It mar or may not be relevant that my searches found other Stonewall Clubs that are far more active, or, at least, get more more press than this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Stonewall Democrats, per E.M.Gregory.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dangle Glynn[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a sports commentator, based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single video interview in which he's the interviewee rather than the subject. A person does not get a Wikipedia article on the basis of their own self-published social media presence — they get a Wikipedia article via coverage in which they're the subject of reliable source content written by other people, but no coverage of that type has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of article does not meet the wikipedia notability threshold WP:N and certainly does not pass WP:GNG since there are no proper references with significant coverage across multiple WP:RS. Zpeopleheart (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not currently notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srey Danny[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY for now. Could be recreated if subject of article meets these requirements in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football to meet WP:NFOOTY, and insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of MSX compatible computers[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of commercial products built around antiquated standard. Ends up being a catalog of old products. The large majority of items on this list don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "antiquated" doesn't factor into the equation, as notability is not temporary, and the MSX standard is certainly notable. A list where most of the items fail notability criteria (and as such don't have articles) is okay per WP:CSC. LjL (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists where entries fail the notability criteria "are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic." Here, the items given aren't verifiably mebers of the proposed group because there are no references. And because their notability was temporary, such references generally aren't available. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their notability couldn't have been temporary, because notability is not temporary. I feel I am repeating myself here... As to references, we have things like Google Books, the Internet Archive, and potentially, editors still owning relevant magazines or whatever. WP:OFFLINE sources are perfectly fine, you know. LjL (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've presumed that this subject was notable in the first place and this piece doesn't present any evidence that it was. NTEMP says this: "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." MSX-compatibility was interesting in the 80s, but is now completely irrelevant; it might have been notable at one time, but now is completely irrelevant. Standards from the same era that were truly notable still have references readily available because their notability was not temporal. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of what you just said at all. MSX is a well-known standard among those who have any knowledge of home computers at all. It was definitely notable in its time, and as such, it can't stop being. LjL (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forget about notability. This is contested content that fails WP:V for lack of sources, and none have been provided for weeks now. This makes deletion mandatory. Sandstein 17:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Yelga (CSY)[edit]

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

Partial promotional, partial hoax. Non-notable person with a claimed net worth of US$10 billion. All references are non-WP:RS. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We seem to be getting a number of these recently so WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All self-published sources associated with the subject. No indication of notability. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unacceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to establish the claims. Being one of 5 cofounders of a not particularly notable organization (that we do not have an article on) is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Stunna[edit]

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

Another Nigerian upcoming artist, struggling to be notable. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. None of the sources provided is close to what we considered as reliable sources in Nigeria. The sources provided are either blogs or cheap website with no editorial control or oversight. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. VIMA is a major music award in the Asian continent. Stanleytux (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until he gets better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional contents that are lacking citations. “He has released one mixtape, The Research Paper and singles that have topped charts in a few cities around the world.” I'm a fan of rap music but who is Young Stunna? Fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable artist, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings by an individual[edit]

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

"Mass killing"? Whats the point of this and the table is incomplete by the thousands or millions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) And so are innumerable other tables on Wikipedia. None of these claim to be exhaustive, so there is no point of discussion. Why should it be different here? Tavernsenses (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tavernsenses (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It mixes killings that are the work of a single individual with events that required the collaboration of many. People who were ordered to do so in war time, under a penal system, or homicidal maniacs. The whole thing is intentionally a mixed bag, lumping single acts and multiple, serial acts. So we have the sinking of ships during war by "unknown crew member" because someone would have eventually pushed the button at the end of a chain of command. The list isn't properly titled, even: some contents aren't "mass" killings because here on Wikipedia we make a distinction between mass killing ("simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time"), Spree killer (sequential) and Serial killer (in the sense that a "killer," the listed snipers or executioner, would work serially over a longer period of time), all of which are lumped together here. Moreover, I don't think you can say that the ordered dropping of a bomb or firing of a torpedo by a serviceman in a chain of command is an "individual" act. I have to say that I do respect what is perhaps the underlying philosophy of this list, which is that all of us have a responsibility for own actions when it comes to the taking of a life, regardless of the situation. But I still don't think it works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bizarre article which presents a ridiculously simplistic view of events. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC). In the light of article impartialty, is a 'view' that is as simple as possible not to be aspired? Should not, ideally, a Wiki article have no view at all? Tavernsenses (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete this collection of disparate events. User:Shawn in Montreal makes a cogent argument; cogent is preccisely what this article topic is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What disparity? They're all mass killings, carried out by identifiable individuals. It's not like a list of people with blue eyes. Tavernsenses (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn in Montreal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Tavernsenses (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) This article is mainly intended to list the killing (of other individuals) power that technological evolution has bestowed on single individuals, culminating in the destructive power of nuclear weapon technology. Torpedo technology seems to do rather well as well. There is to my knowledge no other article that focuses on this issue. All of the information contained is well referenced to Wikipedia sources, quantitatively (thus impartially) re-assorted. In true keeping with Wikipedia ethics, the article does not (unlike some of its reviewers) express any moral judgement, such as whether the killings were legally justified, acts of barbarism, carried out by a psychopath, or were effected by unwitting conscripts in the mist of a just war against a tyrant ideology of some description. It merely lists, in numerical order, the events in which multiple human lives were terminated as the result of the action of a single human. The article to that purpose explicitly requires that between the moment of action and the actual killings there is no other human intervention required or possible; the bombardier presses a button (action), an electric signal is sent to the A-bomb release system, the bomb auto-detonates, and people are killed, in a rather irrevocable manner. The bombardier literally does the killing, because the killing happens if he presses the button and the killing does not happen if he does not press the button, and there is no human intervention down the road that can alter or prevent the subsequent unleashing of deadly violence. He is the last human element in a long range of necessary processes and procedures aimed at destruction. It is not relevant that, had the bombardier refused to press the button, someone else would have, because then that second individual would have merely replaced the bombardier in the list. Neither is it relevant whether the bombardier was just following orders, was faced with court-martial if he didn't, or was on the contrary happy to give the Japs a thorough thrashing. Any speculation on his motivation does not befit a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, the responsibility for the killings may quite possibly be discussed in other Wikipedia articles, but not in present one. I am mindful of the feelings of anxiety certain readers may entertain upon seeing a beloved war hero listed in the same table as some murderous psychopath, but again, when composing impartial proper wikipedia articles, we should try to ignore feelings and confine our considerations to facts. Facts that have been well documented. No doubt, a nazi camp guard dropping off zyklon-B pellets into a gas chamber may potentially kill more people than torpedoing a troop ship would, but is he the only one doing the dropping? If not, it’s no longer a single individual, and you will have to conduct the rather macabre business of dividing the number people gassed in one go with the number of camp guard dropping pellets. And did that particular guard participate in other gassings? If not documented, he has no business appearing in the ranking. If documented, he has all the right in the world to prominently feature in it. In another example, we have no assertion whether someone who participated in multiple firing squads was issued the blank bullet or not (human ingenuity is apparently equally proficient at designing absconding technology). However, we do know for a fact that a single bombardier released a WWII A-bomb. Indeed, modern A-bombs may feature abort mechanisms, in which case a higher echelon person is able to neutralize the actions of the bombardier before they do any harm. In such case, that person (if he/she did not use that ability) has earned a place on the list, supplanting the bombardier. This is all entirely consistent with the outline at the beginning of the argument. As stated, the list is by no means exhaustive, nor does it purports to be so. And in that it does not differ from innumerable other listings on Wikipedia. It is exactly up to contributing readers to make it more exhaustive. And if anyone should feel an entry is poorly documented or referenced, this could be taken up by a hanging committee such as presently seated. But I do beg no to proceed too hastily with any other, more drastic action. Hopefully I have made a cogent argument for retaining this article in Wikipedia. And on a somewhat cynical note, I would like to end with the old NRA adagio; “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people that use them”. Tavernsenses[reply]
Alternatively, single individual could be changed to single action. That would exclude the serial killers, the henchman, the snipers etc. Tavernsenses (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Shawn in Montreal gives the long version and Nick-D gives the short version. - Location (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist" Where does the article fail to refer to reliable, published sources? Granted, it only refers to other Wikipedia pages, but the latter are externally referenced. Tavernsenses (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the two sentences in WP:OR directly after that one. - Location (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is nonsense. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbage[edit]

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

Looking at the history tab I see a large number of edits by what appear to be connected and WP:COI contributors. There has been no declaration of COI anywhere. Much of the referencing is PR, press releases and regurgitated press releases. I suspect this to be part of a paid editing promotional campaign, and am nominating it for deletion as a blatant advert. I have not checked all the references, but I smell WP:BOMBARD Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was the user that attempted to clean up the page from previous COI editors. One user in particular, "KabbageKate", seemed very likely to be directly related to the subject. The page was riddled with WP:NPOV issues that I tried to address. The page has been live for over four years, with dozens of editors contributing to the page. The proper route would be to improve the page rather than flat-out deleting it, as it so clearly passes WP:Notability with trusted independent sources such as The Washington Post, Forbes, New York Times, USA Today, and Bloomberg, see WP:SIGCOV and WP:NRV. As it relates to the press releases, it appears that there are only three out of over 45 sources total, which passes WP:SPIP. This is something that can easily be corrected, rather than resorting to deleting the page. In regards to WP:BOMBARD, sources have been added by a variety of editors, including myself, and I don't think it applies here; there has been WP:SIGCOV of this subject. Walton2413 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now at least as so a better article can be made as the current version is not exactly entirely acceptable. Pinging past users Orangemike, WilyD and Diannaa and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. andstart over. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister DGG We already have a base for the article. What's the point of deleting it and starting over if we can just improve the existing article? I'd argue it's not at all borderline notability. I identified the promotional issues the same as you. and attempted to clean up the page a couple months back. I think it has improved and become more factual, but if it needs work why don't we collaborate to improve it, rather than just outright deleting it? It's worth noting it is a company page - and with most company pages, it's essentially an "About" page (this is an encyclopedia) which is going to be inherently promotional in some respects as its obviously going to describe the company and what it does. Nobody in here has identified which elements of the page are promotional, what shouldn't exist, or what could be improved. Deleting and starting over puts use nowhere - as most of the same content would likely be included a second time around. Let's identify what information is too promotional, and improve/remove it. Walton2413 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for doing this is that it is the only way we can try to prevent promotional coi editing. Removing the article is the only effective sanction. (I used to feel just as you on such maters, but the deluge of promotionalism has convinced me of the need to do something about it. I would not oppose moving to draft space, and restoring after a considerable time--I will now sometimes do that. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG What would stop promotional COI editing from happening on a new page? Editors like that would have the same abilities on a new article as on the existing page. But again, the bulk of the problem appeared to happen from the "KabbageKate" account which hasn't been active in quite some time. Deleting the page wipes out contributions from editors who have been working to improve the page in good faith. Walton2413 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough usable content and references to work with to warrant editing the existing article.Tcom876 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc.), and the article is not comprised solely of advertising. The article has a neutral tone, and much of it simply presents facts, company achievements and milestones. Many other types of articles have such content, such as charting statistics and music recording sales certification for albums, awards awarded to artists, companies, actors, filmmakers, etc. Perhaps such content in the article should be consolidated into an abridged "Awards and achievements" section in it, or something to that effect. Many of the sources used in the article are not press releases. This is quite salvageable, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is substantially/wholly marketing copy. We have a lengthy section on "Product", for instance, which doesn't mention Kabbage's main product: easily obtainable 80% APR loans. The company is definitely notable, though. Mxheil (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Hot Dog and Sausage Council[edit]

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

insignificant organization; the proposed merge was rejected. Ref 1 barely mentions it; the others are not adequate for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is so problematic about this food-related stub that it must be deleted. The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council is frequently quoted in the press about matters pertaining to hot dogs and sausages. Mostly hot dogs. I don't think that merging it with American Meat Institute is the right way to go, but other editors might feel differently. Protopone primigena (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Meat Institute and include some content at List of food industry trade associations if found to not be independently notable. Sources found thus far are a bit light; many of them provide statements from the council, but not much information about it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - suggest at least keeping redirect because it was recently mentioned on NBC Nightly News when it declared a hotdog not to be a sandwich. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to coverage in ABC news, USA Today, MSN and VICE. Just some high profile examples. It seems strange to me that such an oft-quoted body would be nothing more than a redirect, but what do I know? Protopone primigena (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coverage of this specific conflict is insufficient to meet the inclusion criteria for events. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Batapur[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)

No information available about this battle at all there is no mention in enough amount of sources that there should be a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to this unknown battle if it matters. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kautilya3, Wikibaba1977, and AmritasyaPutra:([20]) for opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only 165 Google hits for Battle of Batapur. Article does not mention any fatalities. Unless it was called something else, it appears rather insignificant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a series of battle articles created by various Indian and Pakistani POV pusher editors. As Wikimandia said it is very insignificant incident and no mention of this "battle" in independent reliable sources. Moreover if there is any "mention" still a passing mention do not deserve separate article. Currently article has this source which is a "opinion" as heading says. This is the best source that creator got, this source only have passing mention of Batapur bridge. I wonder this should be called as "battle" or not, this is seems to be an original research. This incident is insignificant specially when there is vast reliable literature on India-Pakistan conflicts still there is no description of this event in those sources. Fails WP:MILNG.--Human3015^TALK 14:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename/Move and Create a Redirect while we are at it: The actual battle is called 'battle of dograi and batapore'. Lots of books written about this which discuss it in detail. A simple google search with the real name brings forth a handful of RS. So no need to delete, just rename. here are only a few of the sources on the net. There are many books which are not digitized, so other sources may also be found. Anyway, there are many books which establish notability. Like, this, this, this, this, this, and of course this book which has been written in its entirety about this single battle. I am sure when there are ENTIRE BOOKS written about a battle we don't delete their articles. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename and Develop: This source (Anthony, Frank (1969), Britain's betrayal in India: the story of the Anglo-Indian community, Allied Publishers) says The battle of Dograi has rightfully taken its place as an epic in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. Clearly notable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I think that we are confusing two things here. First we have to know what was Dograi.

"Dograi was a township that stood on the East bank of the Ichhogil Canal."[21]

"Dograi, a small township located on the east bank of the Ichhogil canal, was the scene of bitter fighting."[22]

"The battle of Dograi was the last and also one of the grimmest battles before the cease-fire. Situated on the Ichogil Canal on the main Grand Trunk Road Axis."[23]

"After capturing the township of Dograi, we neutralised the strongly-held pre-Ichhogil canal line of defence."[24]

"Situated on the eastern bank of Ichhogil canal, Dograi is about eight miles from Lahore."[25]

Your source also mentions Icchogil Canal on same page.[26] Since Icchogil Canal was related which is related to battle of Lahore,[27][28] that means we already got an article on this battle, which is known as Lahore Front, and there is also a Battle of Ichogil Bund where the battle went from 22-23 September, but the article is not well written. "Battle of Batapur", name and the article still remains dubious with mostly false information and unknown, that's why nominated for deletion. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can find mention of Battle of Batapur in following books

The Story of My Struggle by Tajammal Hussain Malik
India-Pakistan War, 1965, Volume 1 by Hari Ram Gupta
Missed opportunities Indo-Pak war 1965 by Lachhman Singh Lehl
Prepare Or Perish: A Study of National Security By K. V. Krishna Rao

Wikibaba1977 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename: I could not find anything good on the internet, but those books kind of prove that this battle was an unimportant yet notable battle. It seems completely workable article. The literature might be limited in nature, but it is easily able to prove notability. There is enough WP:DEPTH to WP:FIXIT. Ceosad (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small part of Lahore battle, nothing to be described about this small move anymore more than a couple of sentences. Capitals00 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not much content here. No one has identified any source which features this battle as the subject. Mentions do not establish notability. When anyone finds good sources this article can be recreated at anytime. It is not too much to ask for someone to provide a source giving a narrative of this battle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you mean these sources perhaps? this, this, this, this, this, and of course this book which has been written in its entirety about this single battle. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actual battle is recorded to have occurred. There are sufficient sources to prove this. Xtremedood (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable battle. The Avengers (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT as most sources that mention it are just trivial mentions. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief mentions are not sufficient to establish notability, and brief mentions in the sources are all that I could find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 12:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Saunshi[edit]

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

There is no information available about this battle at all there is no mention in enough amount of sources that there should be a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to a small incident of hardly two sentence.[29] Total google results are not even three-hundred, and they have copied wikipedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kautilya3, Wikibaba1977, Mar4d, and AmritasyaPutra:([30]) for opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search through Google for <"battle of saunshi" -wikipedia> finds thirteen results. While the Google test is often not authoritative, a late-eighteenth-century battle between major Indian powers (one being Hyder Ali, who received a good deal of British attention) can be expected to get far more than thirteen hits. Moreover, the citation is a fabrication; it claims that the information is derived from page 916 of a printed book, but the book ends at page 745. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Incorrect. It is indeed on page 916 of the source, as indicated in this link: [31]. Direct quote: "Haidar Ali of Mysore recovered from loss at Chinkurli (1771) to regain Coorg and Malabar, previously lost to the Marathas, then sent a force under Mohamed Ali across the Tungabhadra in southern India. Near Dharwawr at Saunshi, Patwardhan Chief Konher Rao was defeated and killed and Padurang Rao was captured. As a result, many local Chiefs soon submitted to Haidar". Xtremedood (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a different source. Since you insist that I'm wrong, please quote for me even the first word that appears on page 916 of https://books.google.ca/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC, which is the cited URL. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as other phantom battle. There's no record that this battle under this name happened. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Nyttend. There is no detailed description of this battle in reliable sources to deserve separate article. One or two passing mentions can seen but it is not significant enough to write separate article. Fails WP:MILNG. Do not have multiple reliable sources despite vast literature written on Indian history, specially battles between major powers of India. --Human3015^TALK 23:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well documented battle. Just because the Hindu dynasty of the Marathas lost, does not mean that it should be removed. Here are some references [32], [33], [34]. Xtremedood (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood, what you want to prove by mentioning religion? Your comment can be explained by WP:TDLI. You have provided 3 sources, first 2 are same books but you posted it twice and book is non-accessible. Third source have just passing mention which can be added in parent article of Maratha or Haider. Do you think mention of 2-3 lines somewhere deserves article? Read basic WP:GNG. Does effect of this incident was log lasting? Sources do not cover any more aspect of this event other than just "mention". --Human3015^TALK 00:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small typo it seems, here is the third source: [35]. The user who requested for the deletion of the article, user:D4iNa4 has a history of blanking entire sections of articles related to Hinduism, see [36]. Therefore I do not think religious motivations should censor articles. The battle of Saunshi is well recorded and should stay. Xtremedood (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a troubling edit and have responded to your comment on the talk page. You didn't like a few recent edits in the section about Hinduism, so blanked the entire Hinduism section? huh? —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another source ^[1] Xtremedood (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention from a source of 1884 is best you could get? D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is another source^[2] It however uses the word "Sansi" on page 119 to refer to Saunshi. Xtremedood (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency - Volume 22, quote: "Before the joint Maratha and Nizam armies could march, a small force under Konherrao Patvardhan and Pandurang, was (1776) sent to drive Haidar's troops out of Savanur. Muhammad Ali, the Maisur general and Raghoba's agent in command of a body of auxiliary Marathas, came up with the troops under the Patvardhan at Sansi about twenty-five miles south-east of Dharwar. Finding the Poona force drawn up in order of battle, Muhammad Ali began the action with his cavalry. He feigned a check, and, retiring in apparent disorder, was thoughtlessly followed by the Marathas, who, confident of victory, pursued in headlong haste till the fugitive Musalmans suddenly disappeared through openings in a powerful reserve. At the same time a body of men in ambush poured into the flanks of the Marathas a tremendous fire of graph and musketry. The slaughter was serious and the confusion hopeless. Muhammad Ali made a determined charge at the head of his cavalry, and, completing the rout, continued the pursuit for nine miles, and captured many of the Marathas, among them their leader Pandurang. After this defeat, in 1777...", Government Central Press, 1884, p. 413 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: others (link)
^ C. A. Kincaid (1925), A History of the Maratha People (PDF), note: "Sansi" as quoted in this text on page 119 refers to Saunshi, Oxford University Press, p. 119

Keep - this source [37] has made me reconsider. It is a neutral source (Dictionary of Battles and Sieges by Tony Jaques, and has first-rate academic editors/contributors) and while it is not extensive, it not only confirms the battle happened, but states that a chief was killed, another dude who I presume is notable was captured, and "as a result, many local chiefs soon submitted to Haidar." This would indicate the battle was indeed notable and had consequences. This plus the other info above from the Gazetteer etc is sufficient to write a decent article. Thank you Xtremedood for providing this info. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: That's called a passing mention and I had already mentioned it on my top comment that except that single source there is no other mention. If none of the sources have anything more than two liners regarding this incident, why we should have whole separate article? Gazetteer is a snippet from 1884, the golden period of fringe theories. This incident was non-notable and fails WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice that. An issue is that we were looking for "Battle of Saunshi" when it doesn't actually appear to have such a formal Western name. Thus I could not find anything. That it was included in a respected Western encyclopedia of battles not only confirms it took place but indicates that it is of significance. Your claim that the source from 1884 is irrelevant because it was the "golden age of fringe theories" is silly. There is no reason to believe the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, written by a Scotsman and beautifully cited with footnotes, is anything but a reliable source (though no doubt sympathetic toward the British). The reason why the Gazetteer is only a paragraph or so is this is not a book about the war, but a massive 800-page anthology covering everything ever about Dharwad - look at the insane table of contents. [38]. The Gazetteer report also confirms this battle was a turning point. I really don't even know what you mean by "fringe theories" - are you suggesting this information we have describing this battle is misleading or that it's a hoax? You say it shouldn't have a "whole separate article" but you are not suggesting it be merged - you want it deleted. So which is it? Finally considering it is a battle that is obscure by Western standards, happening in 1777, it seems quite likely there are additional, offline, sources available (especially non-English). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only two sources in over two hundred years, one of them being dubious while other one is over hundred year old? That's not reliable sourcing. 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The Nom seems to be trigger happy with AFD's without satisfying the BEFORE requirement. There seem to be a lot of sources to show that this meets GNG. What seems to be the problem to be frank? NOM should keep in mind that not every war/battle needs millions of deaths and hundreds of miles of area to become notable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many reliable sources we have? That actually mention this battle? Or any that have detailed it? None. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If something doesn't exist on the internet, it doesn't mean that it does not exist at all: Could more WP:DEPTH be provided by non-English literature? I tried my best to find the Hindi name for this battle but failed. The references are barely enough for WP:MILNG. 18th century India's turmoil might give some biases in historiography for other notable events, as this battle occurred during the First Anglo-Maratha War. Ceosad (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the detyails given of what happened being rather thin. The sources quoted clearly indicate that a conlect of some kind took place. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Continental Indoor Football League records[edit]

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

Non-notable records for a very minor football league, fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:GNG. A merge will cause WP:UNDUE issues, so a deletion is proper Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete While I would scratch the "very" in the minor league football comment in the nomination, it doesn't really matter. This page is essentially a reprint of a page that already exists on the internet. List articles are okay, even listing of records--but this one doesn't seem to me to meet any notability measure for list articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN. This grouping is not notable without coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. We do have standalone lists for stats and records for certain sports leagues, but this one is not notable enough. Agree its not worth merging per WP:UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Thunderfuck[edit]

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

The last AfD was closed as "keep" about a year ago, though I think it could have just as reasonably yielded a deletion. The article cites no reliable sources, and editors at AfD #1 only managed to find one additional citation: a passing mention in a single HuffPo article. Sourcing and notability issues aside, the content itself is badly written and not in any way encyclopedic. Since no merge or redirect has been enacted over the past year, I think outright deletion is the best course of action. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This strain is much more well known as "Matanuska Thunderfuck" and "Matanuska Tundra".

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

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have notified WikiProject Cannabis about this nomination, in hopes to generate more discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Just meets WP:GNG, but not by much, as per the following sources. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. An option is to merge content to Cannabis strains. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Big Book of Buds". pp. 233–235.
^ "Danny Danko's Marijuana Strain of the Week". High Times.
^ "The Cannabible 3". p. 370.

- Thank you Northamerica1000 for your comments. What is your assessment of the sources you have suggested, in terms of reliability and usability in an encyclopedic sense? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Cannabible mentions the strain once in passing, hardly significant coverage. As for the others, eh... I'm not convinced a brief profile of the strain in a huge almanac of strains is terribly persuasive either. That High Times editor calls the strain "legendary", but doesn't even try to explain why. I don't doubt that this strain is well-renowned in smoking circles, but I still don't see any general notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found in Google books using the various names. I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis be alerted to the article's poor state. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have yet to find evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources which would be compatible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The sources suggested thus far (and in the prior AFD as well) are not suitable in my opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamaguchi先生: What about a merge to Cannabis strains? This would WP:PRESERVE the content and improve coverage in the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I am not informed enough to make a difference between an unimportant cannabis strain and a notable one. I seriously doubt not all of them are inherently notable. Lack of reliable sources make me lean towards deletion, but there are a lot of book sources under the alternative names... I would support the proposed Merge. Ceosad (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not sure why but I thought this was a pornography model ... Proves how much I know , Anyway Weak Keep per above - Lack of sources isn't ideal but the book sources are IMHO enough notability wise. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus over whether this stand-alone list should be kept, but there is consensus to rename this. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation product list[edit]

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

Product catalog (Wikipedia is not a catalog). Unreferenced entirely. Most links redirect to the corporate page; the rest are broken because the product is not notable. Indiscriminate list problems, as well. The best place for a list of Fender products is Fender's commercial website. Mikeblas (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better need for this article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a Wikipedia:Books article, leaving a redirect. Another option might be to merge with the NAVBOX. This is a useful article and is accessed 1300 times per month. I disagree with the nominator's contention that the manufacturer is motivated in any way to maintain this information, they are interested in selling new instruments and generally do not maintain information on legacy models. This type of information is otherwise only available in very expensive specialty books. This is a fantastic compilation directory of legacy models/articles where a non Wikipedia geek can easily improve the topic. I believe the perceived problem here is the form, not the content. -- 009o9 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is clearly a sales/product catalog... WP:SOAPBOX is being grossly violated by this. If it survives AfD, categorize it into a list article and contact WikiProject Guitarists to fix it. Ceosad (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in my opinion the worst issue is that it is entirely unreferenced. Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that requires a reference WP:MINREF. Unless someone challenges that one of the products is not by Fender, or challenges the opening sentence. I think if you just change the name to "List of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products" you will have a list article. I'm not seeing how a glossary of products, by name only can be WP:SOAPBOX. Sadly, a lot of model-specific articles have already been AfD'd and redirected to a parent article. Specific model component information and the place to keep it has been lost, the information was helpful when restoring an instrument to factory specs, or inspecting specific models for authenticity. The number of guitar players in the US was estimated at 10 million in 2004 and Fender is well respected brand, this is not an obscure topic. Sad to see so much nice work destroyed. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Fender Musical Instruments Products (or something else in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Stand-alone_list_articles). I agree with 009o9's analysis of why references aren't essential for a list of this nature, and the fact that so many of the entries have stand-alone articles here makes this a valuable addition to the encyclopeia as a list. Invoke WP:IAR if needed. I also agree that this is useful and represents a lot of work which should not be thrown away; if it is felt that it's not appropriate for en.wikipedia for policy reasons, it would make sense to move this to some other venue where it could find a good home. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revisit your observations. There are lots of red-links in this list. Many of the active links from specialty models (celebrity endorsements or sub-models) are piped or redirected links to generic models. I completely agree about another venue for this list. How about the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation corporate website, at fender.com? -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Troyan[edit]

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

the Vadym Troyan page has been deleted and recreated under several different name variations (by 'different' new accounts, one confirmed sock puppet). See Troyan Vadym, Trojan VADIM and TROYAN Vadym per A7 and G11. One of them was even blocked for recreation by an admin. I recommend Speedy deleting but I bring it to AfD to give a last chance to defend its inclusion and if deleted be able to use WP:G4 to help fight against any further recreation under different names. The issue has been raised at wp:AN/I by 220, see here. Crystallized C (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has been deleted 7 times for notability concerns under the three different titles, two of which are salted. The citation here does not support the assertion that Vadim Troyan has been appointed "the Head of the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the Kyiv region". What it says is that he was appointed as deputy commander of the "Azov" battalion. That's the only source in the article; most of the article is unsourced. I don't think we have the in-depth coverage required to establish notability at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had to revert edits removing the deletion discussion template from the article by Ignat22, another single purpose account and probably also a new puppet.--Crystallized C (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is persistently being recreated because it is a valid article. I linked it to his Russian and Ukrainian bios. This article is a mess and needs to be written in a neutral manner, but the obsession to delete it needs to stop. This article and this bio show he is most definitely "the Head of the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the Kyiv region." The things going on with Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs are highly notable and as chief of police for the entire Kyiv oblast he has received sufficient coverage. As a colonel and deputy commander of the Azov Battalion he was already notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "obsession" by anybody to delete the article, just a commitment to follow and help others follow our policies. If that fails then we each try to help the project enforce them. In the case of this article some important policies that we have choose to follow in Wikipedia have been violated repeatedly and sistematically and always reaping the same result. That behaviour woud seem to be a better fit for the term that you used.

As far as the article is concerned, as you say, it clearly promotional not only because its text does not comply with neutral point of view, but also because it has been created re-created and edited by sock puppets. The other major issue is notability. This Biography of a living person does not currently meet our notability guidelines for people or our general notability guidelines. To establish notability the article needs to have at least two references from Independent reliable sources that treat the subject in depth. Currently the only source may be valid to meet verifiability requirements, but it is not independent from the subject of the BLP. If, as you claim, he has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, please add those references to the article or at least list the links in this discussion. Thank you.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two independent references from reliable sources have been added to the article by Wikimandia. It now seems to meet our minimum requirements for notability. The article still has neutral point of view and verifiability issues. If the issues are not solved today I will probably attempt to improve it myself.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started neutralizing the article, but it still needs a lot of work. In its current state I don't think it's yet fit for inclusion, as. It's still promotional and biased and has verifiability issues. I am no longer interested in further improving the article. It's a subject that I personaly don't feel like digging deeper into. Editors interested in keeping the article should probably address those serious issues.--Crystallized C (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say "obsession" because the persistence in deleting the article (including salting the name) has not been matched by any due diligence to find out if the subject is notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to Assume good faith. You continue to use an offensive and inaccurate term. Are you seriously implying that the six administrators that previously deleted it along with all the regular editors that nominated it or tagged it as well as myself are obsessed with the deletion of this article? If that is not the case, then the word "obsession" was probably not a good choice.

The only repetitive behavior in clear violation of our policies was the systematic recreation of the article without even trying to address or seek help about any of the serious concerns pointed out by multiple users and administrators, and using instead sock puppets and four different permutations for the name to try to circumvent our policies.

How would you describe that behavior?

Notability has been addressed, but there are still serious issues to resolve. If you or any other editors neutralize or commit to fix the article within a reasonable period of time to ensure it also meets WP:NPOV and WP:V I would, of course, change my vote.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Saying you'll recommend keep if other people fix the article is bullshit. That's not what we do here. I've already worked on the article considerably and I will try to fix it more if I have time. And none of the four different permutations of his name would have prevented anyone from finding info about him. There's this great thing called Google that will give you the same results whether you search for "Vadym Troyan" or "Troyan Vadym" or "Vadim Troyan" or "Troyan Vadim." Google understands transliteration and knows Vadym/Vadim and Trojan/Troyan are the same anyway. And the link confirming his position is right in the article. Sorry if you're offended but the deletion history of this article is a fail. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not joking. The article was practically unsourced with just external links not independent of the subject. but most importantly it was clearly biased and promotional recreated multiple times and deleted under WP:G11 by many different users after been recreated by socks in clear violation of WP:COI I did not participate in any of those speedy deletions. I started this discussion to either save of prevent any further recreation of the article. But I think that those deletions were perfectly justified under our policies. I have also worked to try to neutralize the article, but it still needs significant work. It is still promotional, poorly written and barely passed notability. I feel that it should either be neutralized or deleted. We should not allow such a flagrant use of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Since still you seem to think that the author of the article acted correctly in recreating the article in its previous state using puppets. And you chose instead to classify my comments with an offensive word, you will probably be happy to know that I do not want have any further debate with you on this topic, as I am convinced it would be pointless. --Crystallized C (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article may still have some WP:NPOV and WP:V issues, but it satisfies notability for inclusion, as it now has reliable sources. The previous deletions were for unproven notability, so I cannot justify deleting it again. It just needs to be rewritten. Ceosad (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADA Millennium Consulting[edit]

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

fails WP:ANALYSIS —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 14:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 14:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SOAPBOX. Interestingly enough the logo source has been marked as "Own work", so I wonder if someone from the company wrote this article... Not that it matters. It is written like an advertisement. Ceosad (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently User:Finnusertop nominated the offending logo for speedy deletion, and it is now gone, after I pointed it out for him. Ceosad (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCurtis1990 http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/ada-millennium-seals-major-canadian-mro-deal.html I found this recent article, it appears to be similar to Lufthansa Consulting but part of Abu Dhabi Aviation JCurtis1990 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCurtis1990 http://helicopterinvestor.com/articles/abu-dhabi-aviation-and-jcba-form-jv-in-uae/ http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/abu-dhabi-aviation-eyes-venturing-into-real-estate-sector-1.1608955 http://www.thenational.ae/abu-dhabi-aviation-to-launch-consultancy-unit and these in the UAE news and industry press? JCurtis1990 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Crawley[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Keep. Nomination withdrawn. It has been demonstrated that she passes GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur on GNG failure and Women Diver's Hall of Fame is not sufficient for any of the specific guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Does no one have access to databases? The Santa Barbara Independent calls her " Now one of America’s leading ocean-environment educators." Her work is reviewed in School Library Journal more than once. She's a children's educator and she passes GNG. The article needs work, but that's no reason to delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I feel a spinout coming on, having found the following reviews for the book Plastic Ahoy!, which she illustrated (by photographs): [39] - American Scientist, [40] - Maine State Library, [41] - SportDiver, [42] - Kirkus Reviews, [43] - School Library Journal and Booklist, [44] - won a Green Earth Book Award. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Megalibrarygirl Should this be userfied? It's so difficult getting an article going after it's been hit with an AfD. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I think she passes GNG, I'd rather the article be user fire than deleted, MurderByDeadcopy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this passes GNG, it's the inane deadline that occurs once it hits AfD that messes with a lot of articles that gets them deleted when they should not be deleted at all. And then it becomes even more difficult getting them back! Some individuals just don't have 24 hours every single day to work on fixing every worthwhile article that comes up on AfD. Also, I agree with you, that this checking for notability only through the internet is just plain silly, but then I've always find libraries to be the most brilliant of places! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space (or user space) - I have confidence that something notable could be dug up about her. Ceosad (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been demonstrated that she passes GNG, no reason to remove the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In rereading everything, I believe a "keep" is the best idea here since it does appear to pass GNG to multiple individuals and I ultimately question what actually happens to an article that gets userfied. Seems likely that the odds of those articles coming back diminishes greatly. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MurderByDeadcopy, I agree that the time crunch is frustrating. I'm also frustrated that this article is still up for deletion. Her work is reviewed by RS, she is covered in multiple sources, therefore, she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hogestyn[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - After reading the article I was surprised at the dearth of even trivial mentions of this actor. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly active actor who quickly faded back into obscurity? Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Ceosad (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia[edit]

This work was previously nominated for deletion in 2008; later on in that year, the original decision was to keep the article. Since the decision, no substantial work has been done on the page.

Issues:

The creator of the article has only created this article, which was seen as original research, advertisement, and a COI.
In six years, almost nothing has changed. Thus, the above issue pretty much remains.
If the article hasn't changed, it means that no one is looking at this page. Indeed, in the last 90 days, it has only received 329 views. By nominating this to be deleted, I had caused it to received one of the most views in the last 3 months - 16.
The article is still pretty much unsourced, with no inline citations, and the one sourced link appears dead.
None of the organizations and institutions listed in the article have their own Wikipedia page.
The article is void of any standard, and is completely unorganized.
The article is an orphan, and the only article Wikipedia has concerning 'disaster risk management.' The otherwise closest is Disaster risk reduction, which is hardly a gem itself. Indeed, East Asia is the only region that has its own article, even if we consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. Unless we are to spearhead creating an article like this for every region, this article should be deleted.

Alternatively, the only non-deleting option that comes to mind is to merge this article with Disaster risk reduction and that article to be merged with Emergency management. I am willing to discuss additional alternatives.

Thank you,

Tradereddy (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article on disaster risk management in East Asia. It's one organization's status report or press briefing from seven years ago on its then-recent activities in the area of disaster risk management in East Asia. It's like creating an article titled "Mathematics" consisting of nothing but the minutes from the Year's Update section of the General Session of the 2003 convention of the European Mathematics Association: whether the title refers to a notable topic is beside the point. It amounted to using Wikipedia as a web host for that organization's dissemination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This topic has already been deleted via AfD – see log entries for Aleksej Pechkurov. This new version of the article was posted with an unnecessary disambiguator to circumvent the create-protection imposed on the original title. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Pechkurov ( blogger )[edit]

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

This has been nominated for Speedy Deletion three times I believe, and the author Usa.channel keeps removing the tags. So let's formalize it with an AfD. There is nothing here to indicate any reasonable expectation the subject is significant. For instance, the "Reliable Source" link to the The New York Times is actually just a link to the Wikipedia article about NYT; nothing to do with this subject. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draftspace as this is obvious and no more time is needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Sanchez & Feminism[edit]

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

Topic within itself is not notable. Should be deleted, and if consensus, merged into article on Nia Sanchez CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space. It appears the article's creator is part of a Louisiana State University program for writing articles. If this one had been submitted through the Articles for Creation process, it likely would never have made it onto main space. I don't think it's ready for merging to the Nia Sanchez article; nor do I wish to just delete a new editor's first attempt. So, let's put it in Draft space. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More or less agree with NewYorkActuary. Student assignment that looks like it could use some additional work (and/or shifting sights to an expansion of the main Nia Sanchez article rather than creating a new title). Pinging the instructor, BCarmichael and the Wiki Ed Content Expert supporting the class, Adam (Wiki Ed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support moving it to draft space, but we can see what the instructor says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A merge or a move back to userspace would probably be best. There may be enough to support a section in the main biography. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No objection to consensus if there is one (move, delete, etc.). I am just not sure that we should allow the creation of a content fork because the person is a student. If moved to userspace (which I will gladly support), I would advise to let the instructor know that the topic could be, in my opinion, one that is not suitable for a standalone article. Feel free to consider my nomination withdrawn if you feel it best to move back to userspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was my intention -- that the article be moved into draft space until it is ready for merging into the Nia Sanchex article. My apologies for not stating that more clearly. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the instructor, Transunicorn so they can discuss the issue with the student user. Moving the content back to the student's sandbox/user space will allow for the student to correct any issue, while still contributing content. They also can address and incorporate feedback, making this the learning opportunity we celebrate. Thank you all for not deleting the content. We sincerely appreciate the learning opportunity this affords. BCarmichael (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BCarmichael - thanks for contacting me - and thanks everyone else for your input and feedback. I'll be in touch with my student to see how we can move forward. I appreciate all of your support (I am also newer to this so learning as I go.). Thanks! Transunicorn (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Thanks, but it doesn't seem like this needs relisting. All participants including the nominator seem satisfied with the idea that this should be moved to the student's userspace. (I would NAC myself if I hadn't already added to the thread). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move per previous discussion and consensus. Ceosad (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps the time to rework and consolidate the articles about the conflict would be after the conflict has ended and there are better global appraisals of it by reliable sources? Sandstein 17:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition[edit]

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

Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition largely duplicates article Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Plus the term used in the heading (title) is obvious WP:OR.Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: per this discussion. Title contains original research? 07:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see so much as a mere use of this term ("Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition"). It is an invention of the editor who created the article, pure and simple! I do not say this coalition does not exist, but I would like to see some reliable sources saying that it does, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. And as i have said, ALL the info of the article is there in Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and in Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015).Axxxion (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used as a descriptor instead of a proper title. This is obvious by the fact "coalition" is used in lowercase in the body of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: The problem is that Axxxion does not know that WP:OR has nothing to do with the article titles. There are plenty of articles whose title can't be found in sources rather they are describing something! Mhhossein (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem is not just the title; the whole notion (subject) is an invention, as I cannot see anything in any cited sources that would indicate the opposite.Axxxion (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that every cited source indicates this is an accurate description of an existent thing. LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - we have CNN, Al Jazeera and The NY Times stating the "coalition" or alliance or whatever exists. These are the first, second and third references in the article. How do these fail Wikipedia:Verifiability? This is as good as we are going to get - none of us are going to sit in on meetings and confirm they are indeed sharing intel. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pls give me a single source citing "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, speaking of Iraq (as a presumed member of the Russia-led coalition), it appears to be a key member in Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, i.e. the U.S.-led coalition. Yes, a few countries are cooperating with Russia in its activities in Syria such as Israel e.g., but never do we find any mention of a formal "coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- In point of fact, those three articles all refer to a US coalition. The NYT does refer to a Russian-led coalition. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - I'm not sure a non-admin closure was the correct course of action for the last discussion. Personally I would suggest that the article is premised entirely on one news story on 27/28 September 2015, about the four countries agreeing to share intelligence to fight ISIS. Unless there is coverage of the same topic over a wider period, I would say the Wikipedia article was WP:TOOSOON. The other sources appear to provide only a background picture for the fight against ISIS and aren't about this alliance. The situation in this area is constantly changing and we shouldn't write Wikipedia articles on every news announcement, howver widely reported. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the article I agree with the nominator that this article is largely about the Russian bombing of Syria. The 'alliance' is only an announcement to share intelligence. I'm changing my recommendation to "Delete". Sionk (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; reading through the sources it's stretching the material thinly to get this article off the ground. The material is covered in other articles, and mostly better. There simply isn't a lot here except a lot of tangentially related material (some of it poorly supported by the sources) hung off of a statement from Assad about the new coalition. I think that things have happened too recently to be clear on the validity of this article. There doesn't appear to be any source material since late september/early october which is concerning. Also, there is a lot of synth and POV concerns. For example The United States, along with its Western and Arab allies, have criticized this coalition; most airstrikes during the first week of the campaign, they allege, struck areas held by rebel groups opposed to both the Syrian government and ISIS. Several months of air strikes conducted by the US-led coalition, ostensibly against ISIL targets, however, failed to prevent the expansion of ISIS.; pretty clear good hand/bad hand content, with the latter sentence sourced to an article in early 2015! --Errant ^(chat!) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this article failed an AfD less than one week ago on the exact same grounds. This is AfD shopping. As per comments from Mhhossein, Guru Noel, Hollth and others in the original AfD, which I cited as reasons for my original "keep" !vote, I continue to support inclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all the 'keep' votes in the last AfD were based on there being lots of sources in the article. However, sources also need to be about the subject, whicb unfortunately almost all of them weren't. It's hardly going to be 'speedy keep' with two policy-based 'delete' votes anyway. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I affirmatively state all of the sources in this article are entirely about the subject and reject you assertion they are not. There are not two sound policy-based delete "votes" (also, we don't "Vote" on Wikipedia - we discuss and arrive at consensus). Simply referencing a policy, but connecting it to the subject through a contorted and tortured manner that has been entirely disabused by myself and others does not constitute a "policy-based" delete argument. This AfD was run one week ago and failed. This is an abusive use of the AfD process. LavaBaron (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite frank it's delusional and/or misleading to say that all (or for that matter any of) the sources in the article are about a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition. I can see four (all published on 26/27/28 Sept) which say the four countries are setting up a joint intelligence centre. I can see several more that are about cooperation between Iran and Russia. I can see several more that are about Russia's bombing of Syria. Which source is about a four-country coalition? Sionk (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've decided to move into making personal attacks by calling me delusional, I'm going to terminate my participation in this AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very convenient. Sionk (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although we are not here to discuss the policies and we should discuss the AFD based on the policies instead, I have to remind some of the participants here (@Sionk, ErrantX, and Axxxion:) that per WP:TITLE, "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." Anyway, I had pointed to the direct mention of this title in reliable sources before. and explained in details why the article has to be kept. Mhhossein (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, thankyou for your substantive comment. But all these sources indicate that Russia and Iran are both supporting Assad, which had been the case for years. So: What exactly is the subject matter of this article? It essentially deals with 2 events: General Qassem Soleimani's visit to Moscow (which is basically supported by one source referring to anecdotal evidence, namely [45]) and the four mentioned countries setting up a joint intelligence (information) centre in Baghdad. Both events are covered in other articles where they actually belong. Is the lumping together of these 2 events enough to make a new article with a rather contrived (at least it falls under WP:SYN) topic/title? Talking of "information centres", another similar one was set up in Amman as well: Russia, Jordan agree on military coordination on Syria, [46], [47]. Also this: Israel, Russia to coordinate military action on Syria: Netanyahu. Thus, are we to talk of a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq-Jordan-Israel Coalition? What about Armenia, BTW? A close military ally of Russia. As I said above, the problem is not merely the title, but the underlying notion (topic), which is exceedingly dubious.Axxxion (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axxxion: Thanks for your civil and comprehensive response. However, I think you missed some facts, although you tried to clarify the points; In the previous Afd I pointed to the article by The New York Times [48] which says: "It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government," showing that there's something beyond the usual former co-operations. Also, sources such as this and this directly mention the formation of the coalition. Mhhossein (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, you make a very good point which I agree with. However, I'm not too worried about the title. What concerns me is that there is relatively slim pickings on this chosen title (effectively: engagements in Syria involving all four of these protagonists. I guess I am saying thay by choosing this title you've created a topic that simply has no real material to cover. We're I to take the editorial view on this article I'd probably look to cut the vast majority of it, which then begs the question: why not simply merge it. I am concerned that some of the content drifts toward a WP:POVFORK and so it's better to keep things located in other articles till further down the road at least. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would pay more attention the sources regarding this subject. Having these sources, I don't think there will remain anymore doubts over the notability of it:

"Assad foresees success for Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria coalition" - The Jerusalem Post
"Assad forsees success for Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria coalition - Rueters
"Assad: US-Led Coalition a Failure, But Russian-Led Coalition Has ‘Great Chances of Success’" - CNS News
"Syria’s Assad Stresses Importance of Alliance With Russia, Iran, Iraq" - The Wall Street Journal

Please note that I presented other sources in former notes and you can add them to above list. Mhhossein (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's somewhat telling about this is that all of those sources are from early October. Is there anything in the last month that adds to the article? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware there was a 30-day cut-off window. LavaBaron (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like the start of something. Not an event or thing that is over and finished. As such I'd expect sources to continue to treat the subject. In my experience, over the years, that's a definite AFD warning sign. That there are none presented suggests to me the topic doesn't yet stand up. In fact, more recent sources (example) suggest the coalition is less firm that this article implies. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would discuss based on the policies not on my own analysis! Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems evasive, I'd prefer to see you back up your article with sources. To be clear the specific policies I am basing my view on (certainly not my own, thank you) are WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:SYNTH and in this specific case the provision of WP:GNG which requires significant coverage --Errant ^(chat!) 09:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Axxxion - it appears you didn't notify the article creator of this AfD. Are you planning on doing that? Or is that not part of the game plan? LavaBaron (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you don't plan to then I will. @Hadi.anani: LavaBaron (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. The nominator is making a mockery of the AfD process. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the source(s) for this title appear to be a mere repetition of what Assad apparently said. Does that make this a "thing" about which an article can be written? Doesn't look like it to me. In any event, it is a classic case of WP:TITLE being ignored. A descriptive title would be far better. Good luck with it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello. The word "coalition" in the page title could be lowercased if you think it would solve part of the problem. Hadi (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article be kept, the title ought to be changed as per the above. But, after all the viewpoints expressed above, it is even clearer to me that there is simply not enough material to warrant such article at this stage in addition to the articles: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015). My apologies to User:Hadi.anani for failing to notify, as i had my desktop crashing shortly after.Axxxion (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not really original research but taking a large amount of notable content from other article. Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this title is a pure invention about something the Russians hope to put together. Russia is late to the party in Syria, and is not really leading the Syrian Govt or Iran who has been there for over a year. The type does not tell where or for what purpose this alleged group exists. The Russian and Iranian interventions against ISIL are already well covered in articles. Further Iraq is not intervening in Syria and Syria is not intervening in Iraq. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: How can you call that "pure invention" given the sources above? Whether Iraq or Syria are intervening in each other's country or whether Russia hopes for some thing does not affect the notability of this article, does it? Iraq has promised to share intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries share intelligence all the time. Here US worries Iraq will pass intel to Russia[49] Here Israel is sharing intel [50] but we don't include them in the US led anti-ISIL coalition. Pakistan and Russia agreed to share intel, but where is Russia-Pakistan Coalition? How about a US-China Coalition page based on this [51]. Look Intel is cheap to share, easy to be selective about, and might even include intentional false info. Sharing intel does not a military alliance make. its just a nice way of saying "hey we want to look good in the press". Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again ignoring the sources? I never said that all intel sharings can be called coalition, in fact I say that a party can be a member of a coalition by presenting intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the fact that there are two similar articles for the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present) and the American-led coalition intervention in Syria, this article is deserved to be remained, as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but these articles are not similar: US-led coalition is a thoroughly sourced thing, whereas this article is not titled "Russia-led coalition", to start off. And I would like to see any suggestion that it be named that first, with sources attached! Axxxion (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would have been inclined toward keeping the article purely on the basis that it survived another AfD nomination just days before this one; the abuse of process leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Happily, there are content- and policy-based reasons to keep the article. First and foremost, reliable sources do in fact refer to a "coalition" among these four countries — both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal did so, as already noted. The fact that the coalition received coverage when it was first being arranged but has not received follow-up coverage is indicative of the perfectly normal secrecy observed by military and intelligence operations, and should scarcely be construed as meaning that the coalistion has been disbanded — such a conclusion would constitute original research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It also concerns me that allegations have been made that sources cited in this article do not contain substantiation for facts asserted when in fact those sources do say precisely what the article claims they do. Rather than recapitulating the rest of the arguments already made by LavaBaron, Mhhossein, Sa.vakilian and Wikimandia above, I will close by pointing out that, while there is a lot of text on this page advocating for deleting the article, the overwhelming majority of it has come from just one person, the nominator... and, while I of course assume good faith on their part, their actions have called that assumption into question. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, the underlying concept of this article is way premature, especially given the current talk of Russia joining the US-led coalition: [52], [53].Axxxion (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this: [54]. The concept is not merely an invention, as has been noted by a number of the editors, but obviously an intended projection of a certain political agenda and thus can viewed as an attempt to use the Wikipedia as a propaganda platform.Axxxion (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coalition is not "an invention"; it has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Please refrain from basing your arguments on falsehoods. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, there are only two sources in the article referring to this as a coalition, and both of those mentions are trivial. By comparison (and most of the sources do make a comparison) more than half refer to a US-led coalition (or some variation). This situation is evolving very rapidly; and the content in this particular article is synthesised from a couple of weeks of sources and some much older material. There's definitely need to cover this material, but the major player (by far) here is Russia and we have an adequate article covering their involvement. This is just a content fork focusing on a minor item that happened a few months ago. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hear, hear. Look here François Hollande in bid to form ‘grand coalition’ against IS, [55], [56]. It is a fluid sit, as pointed up above: As we have a collection of highly-placed ego-driven pricks, each shouting mine′s bigger than yours, after each round of "terror attcks", obviously organised by their "security services". The whole thing is a filthy joke. One article on each major country′s involvement in this mess is more than enough.Axxxion (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable subject with RS to back it up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, specify WHAT subject do you mean exactly? Grand Coalition proposed by Putin (at the UN in September) and Hollande lately: Hollande calls for grand coalition to wipe out Islamic State in Syria. Or you mean the title of the article being discussed. I still would like to see even an unreliable source that would actually assert that such coalition does exist.Axxxion (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axxxion: You can simply refer to the sources I presented above. I don't think repeating them will be necessary here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, yes, a couple of sources use this phrase, which we have been told is a descriptor -- a discriptor of What precisely? If such article were to exist, it ought to start from a clear and sourced explanation of what it actually talks about. A miltary alliance between the 4 coutries? Ok, then when, how and where was it formed? Like we have for the U.S.-led coalition, which in fact is the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL): Joint Statement Issued by Partners at the Counter-ISIL Coalition Ministerial Meeting. You can find millions of mentions of Martians, e.g.; but does that mean their existence is proven?Axxxion (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist things! We should act based on the sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Mhhossein (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War. This article is unnecessary given the existence of that article and Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War Orser67 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable, well-sourced topic. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted.--Franz Brod (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft namespace. Note that in a later comment, User:DGG stated that they support a move to Draft namespace, and the "weak keep" by 75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also suggested this move as a part of their !vote. As such, to a reasonable degree, overall consensus is to draftify. The article is now located at Draft:NTA (company). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NTA (company)[edit]

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

Fails CORP. Only reliable third party sourcing appears to be the region's main newspaper. No indication of the widespread covstage required under Corp. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable private Energystar certifying agency, one of the about 20 such enterprises. No evidence it's the leader or has the major market share. As would be expected, no refs for notability: just press releases and mentions. I do not consider that news article reliable for notability : local newspaper articles on local companies are normally undiscriminating, and normally written as if they were a press release. After extensive work of several of us trying to help, no better refs have been identified. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work for NTA, so I am COI encumbered. Several refs were found over the last day or so, and I will be proposing them for addition to the article. The newspaper articles, however, I am still not convinced they are 'press releases' as they are news articles, not "paid" advertisements in well established local newspapers. Wscribner (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are a Third Party Certification agency. We are registered to do business in all 50 states. We are the largest of 5 private companies approved by the federal government to inspect manufactured housing which is about 10% of the building industry. We currently inspection 40% of all MH homes being produced in the United States. There are over a 1.5 million homes currently in the US with our name on them. We also inspection almost all homes produced in the US and exported to Canada. We have also written an engineering design guide for the SIP panel association and certify a majority of their panels which build about 2% of the building industry. We are involved with HUD and FEMA every time there is a national disaster. If a company that is involved with 10% of all homes in North America is not noteworthy because they haven't screwed up enough to get in the newspaper then I agree, you should delete our page. Dtompos (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. I think it is difficult for a company to garner mainstream media attention when that company works in a specialized field of industry serving industrial clients rather than consumers. Once such a company does get attention in one media outlet, then often more coverage follows. I can think of other examples that we probably should have articles on but don't: A world-leader supplier of industrial screws (TR Fastenings), India's largest maker of buttons for clothing (Jindal Buttons). I've always felt that WP:GNG or WP:CORP could be expanded to include articles about companies that have demonstrated significant industry reach or influence, even if not covered in the mainstream press. I have objected to coverage in trade publications as an indication of notability, but in some cases that may be the only coverage available. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And all that has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. The discussion above should be at the appropriate guideline talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it has everything to do with the case at hand. Sources below have been identified, and insofar as some are weak or quasi-independent, the relevance of those sources as they pertain to notability must be considered carefully. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've been working with Wscribner and Dtompos to train them in the wikipedia ways, and fill them in on the policy-stuff they've been missing. They are responding well to gentle treatment, though since they are not WP:ADDICTED just yet, it has been slow going. Under the duress of AfD, they have flooded in a few dozen additional potential-refs (besides the South Bend Tribune piece from 2009), which I will evaluate to see if any of the new stuff passes WP:RS muster. I personally have no COI, which means I have been able to help them learn the ropes here on the 'pedia, but also of course means I have little clue how to sort the wheat-refs from the chaff-refs. I suspect there are probably offline refs on microfiche, but do not have access necessary to WP:PROVEIT at present. I will comment further towards the end of this AfD, but if anyone would like to follow along with progress, most of the preliminary-evaluation-work is happening at User_talk:Wscribner#New_information. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or failing that, Pagemove to Draft:NTA_(company), on the basis of the following extant sources:

newspaper ~20 sentences sbTrib'09 (plus mentions in two more), industry ~10 sentences FPS/APA/ASTM'12, academia ~50 cites Purdue'02, governmental HUD/DOE/IRC&ICC

Gene Stowe, Tribune correspondent (April 10, 2009). "Green standards set for RV/Park model industry". South Bend Tribune.. This is the local newspaper piece from 2009, which User:DGG is characterizing as having "the content of a press-release". But he does not mean, that the newspaper article is a regurgitated press release, written by NTA, as is often seen. This is a legit independent publisher, and a legit independent author, writing their own coverage rather than parroting.[57] One can argue that it is 'routine' coverage of a local business, but characterizing this as a 'press release' is factually incorrect. It is at worst a reworked rewrite of a press release (cf regurgitation which involves no fact-checking), and at best a decently-in-depth WP:RS, albeit of limited WP:GEOSCOPE. Taken in concert with the other sources, which show broader geographical impact, I think this newspaper piece helps count towards wiki-notability, and certainly contains plenty of useful boring dry just-the-facts material. It is not a paid advertisement, but earned media coverage. Simply because this media coverage is about a corporation, and their activities, is *not* a reason to belittle the author and publisher as Not Truly A Source, which would set a dangerous precedent (cf Eminem and Hannah Montana and other celebrities who are Not Truly Notable in a traditional academia-only encyclopedia but have *oodles* of press-coverage about their "business" of entertaining people). Depth is ~25 sentences specifically about NTA, or ~15 sentences eliding direct quotations.

Jim DeStefano (P.E. / AIA) (Spring 2012). Daniel P. Hindman (Ph.D / P.E.) of Virginia Tech,[58] (ed.). "Challenges of Designing With SIPs" (PDF). Wood Design Focus. Forest Products Society,[59]. p. 3. ISSN 1066-5757. {{cite web}}: External link in |editor= and |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link). This is an academic-journal from 2012, paid for by the wood-supplier industry (NTA is in the broader construction industry but not in wood-supply: they test and certify some kinds of wood-based products for residential and business construction work, plus write some of the specs which become municipal building-code-laws, specifically the Structural Insulated Panel spec-slash-code). Editorial committee of this journal is around ten PhD-and-or-PE folks, so prolly counts as peer-reviewed, and in any case the ISSN shows the publication is WP:RS despite not having a bluelink as yet. Depth of ~~5 sentences specifically about NTA is borderline-helpful towards demonstrating wiki-notability. Same coverage-event was mentioned by trade-rag of the American Plywood Assn.[60] Subject is the work being done by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) committee on Wood, with a subcommittee on Lumber && Engineered Wood, creating a sub-subcommittee chaired by E.Tompos of NTA_(company) (cf concrete-shear-testing below) to write some ASTM specs about Structural Insulated Panels (roughly: two sheets of plywood sandwiched around a foam-insulation core at the factory and used to create highly-energy-efficient semi-manufactured homes). Official ASTM news-release from Oct'12.[61]

Eric J. Tompos, Professor Robert J. Frosch (September–October 2002). "Influence of beam size, longitudinal reinforcement, and stirrup effectiveness on concrete shear strength" (PDF). ACI Structural Journal. concrete.org. p. 559 through 567.. Has 59 cites on scholar.google.com , and is in a peer-refereed archival publication.[62] This piece is a seven-page 2002 follow-up on the 80-some-page master's thesis (Effectiveness on The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams) that E.J.Tompos published as sole author in December 2000, which itself has three or four cites[63] (in scholar.google.com). E.J.Tompos was VP at NTA when the piece with 59 cites was published, and still is; because the firm is a small business, co-founded by his father and currently under his brother User:Dtompos the CEO, the impact of the family-members on the construction industry (or in this case the Civil Engineering profession as academia prefers to call it) has a direct correlation with the topic of NTA_(company). And although one of the co-authors of the piece on concrete construction was named Tompos, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP the academia-based co-author and the refereed journal process make this piece count as WP:RS rather than as WP:ABOUTSELF, despite one of the co-authors being Tompos of NTA. That said, I don't see this piece as counting significantly towards wiki-notability of NTA, since it has little depth specifically about NTA-the-company ("...ACI member Eric J. Tompos is an engineer with NTA, Inc., Nappanee, Ind. He received his BSCE and MSCE from Purdue..."), but it does count towards the wiki-notability of the Tompos family, showing their impact on the field of construction, and it is pretty common wiki-traditionally to count coverage of the founders as being related to coverage of their corporation, and vice versa, when wikipedia only has an article about *either* the corporation *or* the BLP (by contrast see Larry Ellison and Oracle Corporation which are independently wiki-notable). In cases where the founder is more wiki-notable than the company, AfD bangvotes will often recommend a merge of the corporation-cites into a section of the BLP-article, and in cases where the corporation is more wiki-notable than the founder, the reverse up-merge is typical. In this case, we have an article about the corporation already, and a subsection about the employees at NTA_(company)#Organization, which is where this academia-cite about the concrete beams will fit. Besides the 59 cite-count in academia, e.g. [64][65], the 2002 journal-paper in question was also used by professors in graduate-level Civil Engineering coursework.[66] The precursor, the fellowship which led to the master's thesis of 2000 also got some intra-university press-coverage: "Goldberg Fellowships Fund Promising Students, Research" (PDF). Transitions: Civil Engineering Newsletter from Purdue. Purdue University. Fall–Winter 2000. ...thanks to two John E. Goldberg Fellowships in Civil Engineering established by the late professor's wife, Dorothy Goldberg. ...two structural engineering graduate students are continuing their studies and research in the area Dr. Goldberg devoted his life to. Eric Tompos' research is bringing new knowledge on the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. "The fellowship made the research I am doing possible," he [Tompos] says. ... E.Tompos is now a professor at Trine University (Warsaw, Indiana).[67]

The brother of VP-and-part-time-professor E.Tompos, is the CEO D.Tompos (wikipedian User:Dtompos), who serves on various committees that directly advise federal government agencies on rule-making. Most of NTA's everyday work is related to municipal and state building codes, which they play a small partnership-role in writing&specifying, but they are also involved with influencing federal executive-branch regulations. MHCC member at Dept of HUD since ~2010, per "Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee" (PDF). ManuFACTured Housing Newsletter. Department of Housing and Urban Development. April 2013. plus [68]/[69]/etc, and as of 2014/2015 is now vice-chair[70] (and sub-cmte-chair[71]). Also a member of the MHWG for the Dept of Energy,[72] plus one of five firms named (of fifty participating) in a 2010 public-private Dept of Energy partnership.[73] Most of these are WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions because they lack depth, but in aggregate they will suggest wiki-notability to some wikipedians.

Various other WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions, which don't particularly help wiki-notability, but which do help flesh out the overall picture. Newspapers: The Elkhart Truth'09,[74] and Goshen News'09.[75] Trade-rags which look non-regurgitated: [76], [77]. Trade-rags which are more borderline: [78], [79] (but this one was listed in news.google.com so maybe WP:RS?), [80], [81][82][83].

Note that most of the sources listed here have not been integrated into the article-prose yet, since I'm trying to train Wscribner to use {{edit_request}} for that effort (and to write wiki-neutral prose). There are some other sources at the article already, but the majority are only quasi-independent (ICC/IAS stuff about ISO certifications for example). I suspect per WP:CRYSTAL that offline sources exist, but do not have them available for this AfD. Searching for online sources is complicated by the WP:TLA problem (it helps to specify -nanoparticle -nitrilotriacetate -nitrilotriacetic in searches).

If this AfD ends in bangkeep, or equivalently as 'no consensus' which is probably closer to the truth in that wiki-notability is unclear at the moment since digging for && evaluation of sources is only partially completed, I intend to continue helping the COI-encumbered folks Wscribner and Dtompos seek additional refs, at which point a second AfD would likely give us a better idea of whether the firm is truly wiki-notable, or if it is WP:NotJustYet. Should the close not be bangkeep, I recommend moving the contents of NTA_(company) article to draftspace, and redirecting the mainspace pagetitle to ~~Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance~~ whatever the most appropriate leaf-node article is . 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to draft space; I would absolutely not support a redirect of a specific company to the page for the industry, which in my opinion is even worse than having an article--it gives them a wildly undue importance, as if they were the only significant company in the entire general field on an international basis, which they are not-- Compare them with the truly famous organizations which are listed as external links on that page. It makes as much sense as redirecting a not quite notable restaurant to Food. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

chitchat about what target-article is proper , iff bangRedirect is the outcome

I'm pretty sure WP:REDIRECT disagrees with your take on WP:UNDUE: "Redirects aid navigation and searching". Redirects are purely meant to help the readership find what they are looking for; if they are looking for "NTA_(company)" (which is by definition exactly how they will have found the redirect in question), then they want the wikipedia article about the firm, or failing that, they want the wikipedia article which has a sentence/paragraph/subsection about the firm. If we stipulate that trade-rags must be ignored -- though as Amatulić says this isn't always the proper course -- then known NTA refs make the company borderline-wiki-notable per WP:42. There are one-and-a-half in-depth non-trade-rag refs when modern wiki-tradition demands three. I see them as a weak keep, mostly due to the coverage by vastly different publisher-types per WP:SOURCES: newspapers / academia / governmental / industry. Cert-orgs and standards-writing-bodies are a multiplier-factor, in any industry. That said, even if the end result of this AfD is draftify, certainly the extant refs about NTA make it WP:NOTEWORTHY, and thus per WP:PRESERVE enWiki ought to have a sentence/paragraph/subsection of some extant leaf-node article, and a helpful-navigational-redirect thereto.

Question being, whether I've selected a good redirect-target. Your analogy of mexican-restaurant-in-Food seems pretty off-base to me; I actually worked hard to find a proper leaf-node article! :-) Undue weight would be putting the sentences in the wrong place ... and since you didn't say what you thought the *right* place was, I'll explain my own recommendation for a plausible redirect, to give you an idea of why I picked the target you disliked. On general principles, my view is that enWiki is aimed at post-baccalaureate readership, but we write in simple straightforward 8th-grade English because not every university graduate among the readership is English-as-a-first-language. Thus, I don't consider "Food" to be a top-level article, and I definitely don't consider Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance to be a top-level "industry" article either; it is a subsidiary-field that attaches to a proper parent-industry (construction for NTA). I would categorize NTA in the following hierarchy, starting at something I actually do consider a top-level encyclopedia-article:

Engineering > Civil Engineering > Construction > Housing > International Building Code > Certification listing > Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance > Businesses of Greater Nappanee, IN > NTA_(company)

In other words, I don't consider NTA to be in the "cert industry" but rather in a special niche of the construction industry. (By contrast, UL is kinda-sorta in the consumer device industry; I've never heard of Intertek before this month, actually, probably since they are a UK firm. NSF International and QAI are in the food-industry, see the restaurant-analogy below.) For comparison purposes, your hypothetical Mexican food restaurant I would put in a hierarchy like this, again starting with a top-level encyclopedic article that is a multidisciplinary field of inquiry:

Science > Biology > Agricultural Science > Agribusiness > Agricultural marketing > Food industry > Food marketing > Restaurant > Mexican restaurant > Businesses of Greater Campbell, CA > Jalisco_(eatery)

But in any case, my own eccentric hierarchy-system is (obviously) not set in stone for all of enWiki. I certainly don't insist that Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance is the only possible leaf-node redirect-target, should the result be bangDraftify&bangRedirect rather than bangWeakKeep. User:DGG, what leaf-node article do you suggest, as optimal? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs

Articles for deletion/Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948

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

Hello to all Wikipedia users. Im copying the reasons for deleting this article from it's talk page: "A second deletion proposal

This article is "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'" and has already caused confusion among Wikiusers. It's editing history hard to access, it doesn't link to any other Wikipedia and it's also unclear to what conflict does it cover. We already have a B-class Mandatory Palestine article with a wide politics section in it. For understanding the wide scope of relations between the zionist movement and arab region We have the Arab–Israeli conflict and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's clear this article doesn't add anything but messing with Wikipedia. It was already up for a delete and i suggest either to do so or merge its relevant content with the above mentioned articles.Mateo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, The previous deletion proposal was voted 5-2 in favor of delete, and even the keep voters stated this article needs heavy editing. This article remained incoherent with Wikipedias content, style of writing or editing, and has no sense keeping it as it is.Mateo (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)" 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Mateo (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

A link to the previous deletion discussion, which actually indicates there was a third deletion proposal that was also close voted (9-9 not counting the author of the article). The reasoning of both sides seems quite superficial, with everybody focusing on the title. This led to keeping a bad article, but adding an title that's incoherent with it's content. While the second proposal leaned towards a deletion, the result was changing a title once more, to an even less related title. Strange how not a word being said about the "Intercommunal" conflict between the families of al-Husayni and Nashashibi, nor the conflict between Jewish militias or the relations between them and the Druze or the Negev Bedouin. It's clear this article wish to fix a feeling of bias, but i think Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. So with no improvement in it's content, let's not settle with changing the name again.Mateo (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion proposal your are referring to was originally made on this article under its previous name - "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs". This article wasn't copied from there, but it in fact the same article renamed.GreyShark (dibra) 15:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong. I actually quoted the user who copied it. He wrote it black on white: "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'; see talk) (thank)" It is now hard to trace edits the previous article because of the way the the name was changed. This article is problematical in so many ways, and actually ads almost nothing of importance to the subject it should cover. Best thing to do with it is delete it, but heavy editing is also of consideration.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not read this article, so I have no idea which side is trying to fix which bias. AFter looking it over the outline of this article, I do think that this article fulfills a purpose that is not fulfilled by any of the other related articles (which are listed in the "See also" section) by detailing the Mandatory roots of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in more detail than would have been appropriate in the Mandatory Palestine article. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half the article deals with the years prior to the mandate era. As i said, the name have changed twice but it's content is still "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs", which imply heavy POV and original research. The article is trying to fix a bias by the statement of it's own author, that said he wrote it because "the article on Zionism had no space". So this is actually not an article about mandatory palestine but a critical POV on Zionism that is written in pseudonym. The fact you also got mislead by it clearly points that it's a harmful article. Of course i think we should fix that.Mateo (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - though originally this article was somewhat unclear, its rename made it to cover a very important chapter of the conflicts in the Levant - the sectarian conflict between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs, which is the background to the Arab-Israeli and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts later on.GreyShark (dibra) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we already have additional articles and categories to fit with this topic, so we are not talking about some "invention". For instance: Timeline of intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine, Category:Riots and civil disorder in Mandatory Palestine etc.GreyShark (dibra) 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you speak of were written by you after this one, in false relation to this one, and while they also refer to a conflict that was never separated then the Arab israeli conflict, they do add something of importance. That's why they should stay (but be renamed) while this one should just go.Mateo (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete --ChaDaniNa3echak (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - During the Mandate of Palestine period, Jewish (Zionist) and Arab communities fought against each other. That started 30 years before the First Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of the State of Israel. That's maybe the most important period to understand the root of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflit. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The fighting between "communities" in the region did not start 30 years before the First Arab-Israeli War.

2. There were fights inside those communities as well.

3. There were a lot more then just "zionist" and "arabs" in that region

4. You did states some important things, BUT ALL OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS ALREADY EXIST IN OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLS

5. It appears not a lot of voters actually read the article before voting, and thats very disappointing. Just a glance at the article will make it clear for you that it does not focuses on 1919-1948 and tries to detail the communities of mandatory Palestine, but it is actually a straight forward POV trying to show that the Israelis seek to transfer the Arabs from the land. Now this is a legitimate argument but it is highly controversial and definitely not right for an article named "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine".

6. Furthermore, this term "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" is a complete made up term that is not explained in the article itself nor anywhere else. It is an original research that does not suit an encyclopedia and can confuse readers with lack of knowledge in the subject.

7. As someone how studied this matter, i urge you to read the article and reconsider your vote. I recommend to everybody to do the same.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mateo,

The intercommunal conflict (which doesn't mean armed conflict) started in 1917 at the anniversary of the Balfour declaration and each year after. The Arab population manifested against Zionism and Jewish immigration. In 1920 this evolved in riots which made a tenth of deads and again in 1921. The years after the were huge political conflict with Mandatory authorities. In 1929, new riots all around the country made more than hundred deaths. The years after Arab gangs organised step by step and this evolved in a 3 years civil war (some historians refer to this has the lost Arab Palestinian War of Independence). That war where Arabs fought Jews and the British authorities made more than 5000 deads among Arabs and hundreds among the others. The IZL and the LHI answered to this Arab revolt in using terrorism and Zionists claimed for their own independence. WWII was a truce period but as soon as 1944, the Zionists movements started their independence war (military and politically). This lead to the 1947 partition vote and a civil war (intercommunal war) in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs and that made around 9000 deaths in 6 months (ie more than 50 per day on a population of 2,000,000 people). All this occured before the 14 May 1948. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wont argue with the things you wrote, tough i reccomend you to take a second look at your numbers. What is important for me to clarify once more is that THE ARTICE WE DISCUSS HERE do not deal with the relations between communities in the mandate era! It's a self-described copy of a controversial article named "zionist attitues towards palestinian arabs". This alone should be a cause for deletion. Please read the article. From top to bottom It's a push for a once-sided legitimate but non-encyclopedian POV while using a pseudonym. it causes confusion among users just by using a fringe term to describe the politics in British mandate (that no one would argue were a lot more complex than just Jews VS Arabs), not to mention it's tendentiousness content that focuses solely on the a idea of transfer. But above all the article is edited in a way it's hard if not impossible to see its origins. This bundle of distortions leads to an article that does not explain it's own title, while it's content deals with a totally different subject. There were a lot more then just Zionist and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, and these two groups were hardly monolithic.

But as i said the discussion here is not about what happened, rater if this article contribute to Wikipedia or causes confusion and mistakes. Unfortunetley until now every user had put forth his own opinion on the relations in the region but NO ONE ADDRESSES THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE ARTICE! While this is strange, it got to show you this article can't be defended and is of no positive use. Most of the things you wrote, for example, are already written clearly in the Politics section of the british mandate artice. While it's importnat to expand that section, this article that's up for deletion does not add much to it and it's history and effect demonstrate the need to edit it heavily or delete it alltogether. Mateo (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the current content doesn't fit the title of the article. Anyway, contents issues are not solved by AfD. They are solved in modifying the content.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it's a regular case you are right, but in front of us is an article that already got renamed twice. Do you suggest on renaming it again? Plus this article already causes serious mix up at the subject it should cover, and all of it's important content (which is very little) you can merge with the Politics section of the british mandate article. If you suggest keeping this article and EDIT it so it will explain it's title, you need to start from scratch. You can either vote to DELETE it or you can just set this article it's original name back and edit it's controversial content. In both of this alternatives you would be better using the Politics section of the british mandate article as a basis for an article about the communities of the mandate. But it's either Naming it back so it's title would fit it's content or Deleting it due to it's history and serious problems. What do you think is better?02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Comment - Can be nice to actually find one argument to keep this article that involves the content of the article. Yes, it has a pretty name, but it's an invented pseudonym to cover up a POV. Just read it, please.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nominator.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTOPINION This lengthy article, which I have just read in full, is effectively a personal essay, filled with cherrypicked quotes to comprise an idiosyncratic POV on topics (Zionism, Mandatory Palestine) that are already covered on Wikipedia. As such it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep The topic is notable, and there is scope for expansion. It could use some clean up but this is no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, you think a clean up would be enough? can you mention in specifics what parts need to be cleaned up??Mateo (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think this is a content fork, as some editors have suggested. In any case, improvement should always be favored above deletion (per WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "fork" means in this context, but have you read the content? Have you read any books or articles on the British mandate of Palestine before reading the article? Seriously what do you know on the issue, to vote Keep?

Keep -- This is certainly the appropriate title. Conflict certainly did exist. Zionist attitudes and Arab attitudes would be concerned with one side or the other. This should produce a NPOV article. The problem is that this is a highly polarized subject where editors have strong POVs, so that ending off with a NPOV article may be difficult, but that does not mean we should not try. The subject is certainly notable, so we should have had an article. To the objection about conflict before, I would say that there were only a few Jews in Palestine before the Balfour declaration and the area was under Ottoman control. However, if necessary we could have an article about conflict between Zionists and others in the Ottoman Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no conflict involving Zionists prior to 1921, except maybe the spillover of the Franco-Syrian War in 1920 (but that is another topic).GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the inter-communal politics in mandatory palestine were focused on the relations between a groups of "Zionist" and a group of "Arabs" is bigoted towards both sides and a simplistic POV at best. But to have an encyclopedic article that says that is a damn shame. Can you please address the facts of the matter, rather than the inner politics? As i said, the term "Intercommunial conflict" related to mandatory Palestine is a fringe term, hardly used be historians. Perhaps that's why there is no resource for the articles name, and it actually doesn't appear again in the article itself. How can you defend that? In addition, there were many types of Arab identities in the the region, having major differences along geographical lines and many different families that had complex relations with one another, many types of Zionist, other Jews that were not Zionists, some Jews that were part of the old population and more than a few co-operations between religions even by the time of the British occupation. So there is almost no connection between the name of the article and it's content. This is the reason it should be deleted, way before we say one word about the obviously biased approach of the articles author, that clearly said that this is an expansion of the "Zionism" article. I would like you to reconsider your vote, or at least share a comment on that, as I am quite surprised to find out how many voters here didnt read the article.07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mateo,

As far as I am concerned, I would agree with an important "cleaning" of this article. I agree that too much undue:weight is given to the mutual "attitudes" (and even in the attitude of Zionist towards Arabs) when this is just a (small) part of the context.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And that's because this article is still "Zionist attitudes..." as it was from the get go, just under pseudonym. It was a mistake to think that changing it's name over and over again would urge users to edit it accordingly. This led to a very confusing article that can't stay as it is. Cleaning it, as you suggested, would mean start from scratch. From start to finish, the article doesn't detail events that happoned under the british rule, rather focuses on zionist actions and the responses others. In mass, more than one third of it doesn't even deal with the years of the mandate! That's why there is zero coverage of the 40's, as the article wrongly claims "From the beginning of the forties the Zionist movement stopped paying attention to the 'Arab question'." This claim, like many others, is an unsourced claim, which is still better than the many misquotes and sometimes utter distortions you can find of historians like Yosef Gorny. The more you will go through this salad you will find it's impossible to clean it without deleting it first. But we do have two other alternatives:

1.We can go back to it's original name and edit it's biased approach towards Zionism. When referring to "Zionist attitudes" in plural one must look at the full context of Zionism and should consider the attitudes of important Zionist leaders like Hagana's general Sneh and Tel Aviv founder Chelouche. This would still leave a one sided article in wikipedia but at least would be in proportion with reality.

2. We can heavily edit it and merge it's useful content with the "politics" and "demography" sections of the main "mandate article". Maybe this is the best idea, if we aim this article to detail the social atmosphere under colonial rule.

3. We can recognize that this article has so many flaws, regarding it's controversial history and POV content, that it would be very hard to work on it as it is. We can recognize this was and still is a one person's work. We all know how hard it is to edit an original research. Because it is doing damage to Wikipedia and confusing users, i still think we should Delete it, turn a new page and open a modest and accurate article that would discuss the important issue.

Tell me what you think is the best option, as i would be happy to go either way. 07:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Actually i would have been agreeing with you, if the article still was in its original form (Zionist attitudes). However, with some significant changes, like adding the Arab perspective and the conflict timeline, this certainly warrants for a standalone article. Improvement still needed of course.GreyShark (dibra) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, i know you yourself have put a lot of effort to make this article reasonable and more balanced, and i even know that ironically some of your edits got deleted for pushing a POV that would damage the articles narrative. Trust me, I did my research before proposing this deletion. Alas, your hard work, as respected it may be, is like cleaning a wrecked car. It may look nicer but it is not in any more safer to drive. In fact it is now used as a cover up for a very harmful article. Indeed you and other editors added some Arab responses to those "Zionist attitudes", but it didn't made the article any more to deal with the communities in the British mandate, and their relation to one another. This article is still miles apart from it's title, and therefore it should be changed in according to one of the options mentioned above. This doesn't mean we should delete the timeline, by the way. In fact the timeline just shows again that this title is not appropriate, as it also starts from the end of the 19th century. It also deals with many events outside mandatory Palestine, so why don't we change it's name to "timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict", so we can delete this article without tampering timeline? 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)~

I still say, keep -- The original complaint was that the article was duplicating another. That is a legitimate complaint, but we ought to have an article with this title. If the content is not matching the title, it requires editing, not deletion. There was certainly much conflict during the mandate: at some periods, the British (who were, I think, merely trying to maintain order) found it necessary to support Arabs against Zionists; at other times the other way around. Arguments over the proper content should be resolved on the talk pages, not through an AFD. This is a topic on which views are polarised. Unless we can find an academic who is capable of standing back sufficiently to take a balanced view, it is almost inevitable that we will get a lot of POV statements in it - POV from both sides. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying we basically delete all of the content and leave the title? Fine, but what about the fact that this is an invented title, Wikipedia original, that has no resource in academic literature and therefore no translation in any other Wikipedia? Face it, this article is dent. It's completely dent. I agree that a separate article on Israelis and Palestinians is needed, but a good Wikipedia article on the inner politics under the British mandate should start from the politics section of the main article. So would you agree and reconsider your vote? 02:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Deor. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rōblox/Tutorials[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I will also note that the first edit summary in the page history says "Copied from Roblox Wiki", so people who want to use this can go there. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12, Copyright Infringement. This is a verbatim copy of http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Tutorials which is published under GFDL only, thus is not a compatible license for importing text. Crow^Caw 23:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin Top: A Love Story[edit]

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

Unsourced listing for a non-notable film. Calton | Talk 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some digging since not all of the search hits came up easily in a Google search, but I managed to find enough sourcing to show notability. I can see where Calton's concern came from, since some of these wouldn't have easily surfaced if I didn't use the official website as a guide to finding coverage. Calton, would you be willing to withdraw? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've ginned up a lot of minor sources; you haven't demonstrated anything resembling actual notability. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews aren't considered to be minor and there's quite a few of them - four, if you don't count the movie's listing on the Chicagoist's "worst of" article, which many likely would. Other than that there are seven sources and while some of these are brief, I'm not really relying on those for notability given that so many major publications reviewed the work. This is more than enough to assert notabiltiy per WP:NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EASY Keep per true diligence finding multiple independent sources offering more-than-trivial information to meet WP:NF. I note that while often preferred, WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is not a mandate nor an absolute under WP:GNG... however, the Washington Examiner interview IS more-than-substantial. Parade is more-than-substantial. Monterey County Weekly is more-than-substantial. Business Journals is more-than-substantial. NJ.com is more-than-substantial. twincities.com is more-than-substantial. The Oakland Press review is more-than-substantial. Windy City Media is more-than-trivial. Star Tribune review is more-than-trivial. Chicagoist is more-than-substantial. WP:NF is well exceeded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this point, Tokyogirl79 has expanded and referenced the article it where it's amply clear the film meets GNG. Good work! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the notability guideline for films thanks to the efforts of Tokyogirl79. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" plenty of sources now 46.208.73.116 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OsmoEngine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable video game engine. The1337gamer (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX; an otherwise non-notable fake "game engine" failing WP:GNG with no independent, reliable, in-depth sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no mention by the actual Khronos Group nor any reliable source, this just reeks of being a hoax. Even if not, there's insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content cloesly, you're right, it's a hoax. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing everything (including my searches which found nothing solid at all), I've tagged it as G3. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Modern Slavery[edit]

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

Non-notable NGO. The sources cited either a) refer to their launch night four years ago, b) are self-published, or c) are highly tangential - that they hosted a training course and were one of many organisations consulted on a government plan. This needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Promotional, but I'm sure they work hard for their cause. Neelix is the creator and major contributor, which given his publicly stated in the media advocacy on the topic raises concerns. The other major contributor is User:AAMS2011 = the group's initials with this [84] a series of edits. Basically no unbiased editor has ever touched this article. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unacceptable as there could also be better coverage so all in all this is best deleted and restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Support Network of York Region[edit]

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

Minor municipal-level NGO, purely local sources: that the only information about them is press releases about grants and a panel with a politician points to non-notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another from the same editor that created all kinds of stuff that does not warrant an article. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found a few links but surely nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waconzy[edit]

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

Another Nigerian upcoming artist, struggling to be notable. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. None of the sources provided is close to what we considered as reliable sources in Nigeria. The sources provided are either blogs or cheap website with no editorial control or oversight. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets criterias 8, and 11 of MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since Wanconzy meets two criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Lastly, the artist's debut music video has more views on YouTube than establish artists like M Trill, Slim Burna, Young Stunna, Duncan Mighty, May7ven etc.--Bello96 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The low profile musician is not in anyway close to passing either criteria 8 or 11. By the way, which notable award do you think he won to pass criteria 8? I'd like to mention that I'm also considering Young Stunna for deletion on the same rationale. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This awards are notable in Rivers State including the awards Young Stunna is been nominated for.... I guess You know The Headies really well because you are based in Lagos and their Television channel (Hip Tv) is on DSTV that why they make waves outside their zone which is Lagos State.... That does not mean they are no other awards in the country which are notable to.... Check out Nosa Wikipedia that does not mean you should nominate it for deletion all because you have no ideal about an award, all you have to do as and Article writer is to do your research first.... that what makes a good Wikipedia writer..... An quote me right not wrong He is not a low profile Musician--Bello96 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, passes WP: MUSICBIO. Stanleytux (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO?. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps until a better and notable article is made as the coverage is simply not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article meets criterias 8 of MUSICBIO and the award is notable City People Entertainment Awards and also performed at City People Entertainment Awards in 2011 [85]--Bello96 (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your !vote, as you are only allowed to !vote once at AFD. Natg 19 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The name "Waconzy" generally rings a bell to me. I just did a quick search, and there are quite a load of sources out there.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, where are the load of sources that establish his notability?. Are you talking about those sources with no editorial control or oversight? Only independent reliable sources can establish notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by De728631. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhica Reforms Society[edit]

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

The page was copied and pasted to this site from a LInkedIn page (CorenSearchBot made note of this and I checked the wepsite).

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. judy ho[edit]

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

The references for this article consist either of directory listings, of articles the subject wrote herself, of sources which lack independence (http://www.drjudyho.com/AboutMe.en.html), or ones which are not independent or reliable (IMDB). The interview with her about living in L.A. is not "about" her, it's "about" L.A.. While having appeared on the Dr. Drew show suggests nascent notability, there is no evidence given of the subject having been the non-trivial focus of any reliable, independent publications. KDS4444^Talk 08:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's only other significant contribution is the writing of Maria_Ho an article on this subject's younger sister. Unsourced bio details like where they lived as children until what ages in both articles suggests the creator knows these two intimately. Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With improved sources and seeing she is on TV a fair bit, this may be a keep. I moved it to Judy Ho Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources have been added. Ho has a significant television resume and presence, well over 150 episodes of network and cable television (as noted on IMDb) and currently appears on a major/national cable TV news show Dr. Drew On Call, with as much exposure and notoriety as any other media, television personality or TV host to warrant a wikipedia page. In addition to being the sibling of a sports figure/celebrity Maria Ho. User:Sunface1313 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability made out in abundance on the cited sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear evidence of notability. Though celebrity status may have been focus of the original article, it has been expanded and could easily be expanded even more with sourcing on her scientific contributions including research on mental health among immigrant populations here and here, as well as her published works here. A quick google search results in numerous hits from RS [86], [87], [88], [89] and a gold-mine of potential sources in her resume [90] and her dissertation [91] which could lead to article expansion. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability - article just needs expansion and improvement. Needs to be renamed per naming conventions. 15:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Minor4th
Keep Clearly meets sourcing requirements, and has been renamed to fit conventions (thanks, @Legacypac). petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumith Edirisinghe[edit]

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

The subject of the article is merely a senior police officer. There is nothing contained in the article that establishes the subject's notability - fails WP:ANYBIO. The references only provide a mention of the subject - merely establishing that he exists. The article has been tagged for improvement since August 2015, without any change. Dan arndt (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He holds the rank of Deputy Inspector-General of Police. In Sri Lanka, which has a national police force, a DIGP is in charge of all the police in a province and is therefore responsible for the policing of a population of a couple of million or more. I think that makes officers of this rank sufficiently notable for articles, given that we consider British chief constables and police chiefs of largish American cities, who usually have a lot less policing responsibility, to be notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't have a policy which gives auto-notability for police. Even if it where there, I don't think every DIG would be allowed to have an article. According to the article Deputy inspector general of police, It (DIG) is the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service. And I don't think that rank warrants auto-notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, delete.—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that we consider all military general officers notable under WP:SOLDIER; they can hold the fifth most senior rank in an army! Why would the officers of a national police force be any less significant? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The basic principle is that the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received 'significant coverage' in 'reliable sources' that are independent of the subject. There is no evidence supplied that provides any coverage apart from that the subject exists. A third tier rank in the police force is nowhere near equivalent to a general or a top-level military command position. It is worth noting that even the current Inspector General of Police hasn't an article on wikipedia. Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would respectfully suggest that if you think a DIGP of a national police force is "nowhere near equivalent" to a brigadier-general (who we consider to be inherently notable) then you know very little about the command structure in either the military or the police! In actual fact, a DIGP wears similar insignia to an army major-general. And it is irrelevant whether his superior officer has an article or not yet; he's clearly worthy of one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you are missing the point an individual is not just notable because of the rank that they might have obtained - they should be notable for their achievements, which needs to be detailed in independent reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I think you're missing the point that reaching a rank of this stature is an achievement! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I understand Necrothesp's viewpoint, I don't think the comparison between military and national police holds up. In my opinion, this would be much more akin to the Executive Assistant Director at the FBI, which also does not give inherent notability. And without the inherent notability, this individual does not pass WP:GNG, as searches turned up nothing but brief mentions, and few of those. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Grechishko[edit]

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

Failure to show original research Thank you! larsona 08:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject verifiably plays for a club in the Belarusian Premier League so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but there's not enough coverage on this guy that I could find. Just the basic stats, and if that's all that exists out there, then there's nothing to curate -- nothing encyclopedic -- about it. I maintain my stance that the right action is to delete. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NFOOTBALL. Added extra source for your reading pleasure. -BlameRuiner (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 15:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Karalashvili[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT, no reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. Coverage is limited to the usual pageant blogs and photographs. Yet another poorly sourced mass-produced stub. • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails 1E & GNG,. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this subject meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earthworm Jim 4[edit]

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

WP:NOT-Crystal Ball Entire article a record speculation the most useful blurb is the referenced comment from Oct 2015 indicating tat this game product never existed BrandeX (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The game exists.[92][93]. We just don't know what had happened to it. It is covered by reliable sources, including TenNapel's denial of his involvement in the project. I see no problem with it having its own article. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination is extremely misleading. Yes, the game has been stuck on development hell for years, but none of the content is speculative - it's entirely sourced content, by third party reliable sources, much of it commentary by the creators or companies related. Being released is not a criteria for having its own article, third party coverage is. Plent of reliable sources, per consensus at WP:VG/S. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources that dedicated entire articles to the subject:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-returns
http://www.gamesradar.com/earthworm-jim-4-still-coming-when-the-original-team-can-get-round-it-currently-has-awful-character-design/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-4-announced-by-an-overenthusiastic-interplay-no-p/
http://www.gamezone.com/news/new-earthworm-jim-game-will-probably-happen
http://www.1up.com/news/interplay-announces-earthworm-jim-4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-17-david-perry-sure-a-new-earthworm-jim-will-be-made
http://www.gamezone.com/news/creator-doug-tennapel-teases-earthworm-jim-4

Additionally, there are lots of passing mentions that help pad out the actual content of the article too. Plenty to pass the GNG and write out a complete article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Neutral~~. Strictly speaking, ~~fails WP:GNG as~~ the product doesn't exist. That said, WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future products with sufficient sourcing. So if one applies GNG for "announcement of EWJ4", then it kind of passes. I still think WP:TOOSOON should apply until there is an actual announcement ~~(the 2008 one was later denied)~~ by the IP owners or the contracted developer backed up by an in-development product. Most sourcing boils down to people wanting to make it and talking about it, but nothing real yet existing, just tons of rumors ~~that are all denied~~. Current article (without directly using the quotes) could serve as a paragraph on development history if the game was ever made. I definitely consider content worth keeping, just unsure if it should be a stand-alone article or part of people's and developer's article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itd be more accurate to say that the game was officially announced by the publishing company, but the individual members of the dev team state that they're not personally actively developing it, but are brainstorming ideas for it. It was more than just an announcement though, the company has listed it as a game in development for many years (see article). "Disproven" probably isn't the right word, more like there is a disconnect between the publisher and the dev team members. But regardless of its development status, both sides of the story has received coverage over the years, making it meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess they are seriously talking about it. They just have produced no results. I doubt that's a topic deserving a separate article rather than a section in developer's article. But it has plentiful sources, so if consensus is to place content as a stand-alone article, I'm okay either way. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:GNG says nothing about requiring a product to exist, only that a topic be covered in detail by suitable sources. As a topic, Earthworm Jim 4 clearly meets this... Even if the product that the topic discusses doesn't exist yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will consider sources as applying to the future product rather than the announcement and discussion of such a potential product. I guess I applied TOOSOON too strictly here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I direct your attention to this AfD on Duke Nukem Forever. FrameDrag (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the world's most famous forever in development video game example is quite the same. We have plenty of counter-examples, for example Fallout 4. We discuss each article individually and should focus rationale primarily on general notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More similarly, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_Hearts_III_(3rd_nomination) - this article was kept back in 2012, prior its announcement, because so many third party sources covered commentary on the game during its long development. There is a precedent for keeping this sort of article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars:_Battlefront_III_(2nd_nomination) too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 宇田[edit]

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

No references were shown in this article. It is also very short and needs to be translated from Chinese to English. (Also does not show why this person is important) (Posted using TW-TW) The Pancake of Heaven! 06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of references in an article is a maintenance issue, not grounds for deletion. The article is not so short that it doesn't qualify as a legitimate stub. Articles posted here in languages other than English are handled following the procedures at WP:Pages needing translation into English, and aren't eligible for deletion on that basis until it's gone two weeks without being translated (at which time they are typically PRODded). 10:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed the last point. If the article uncontestably doesn't show why the person is important and the person isn't notable, then the article qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and there was no need to initiate a discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Despite the nomination this is all related to Neelix - The user is obviously not the articles subject and the user isn't the creator of this article so I'm wrapping this up as Speedy Keep, No objections to renomination at any given time. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix[edit]

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

The entire article is directly sourced to primary sources, with no claim of significant notability as needs to established from outside RS. The article is written "in universe" and is therefore not encyclopedic. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is always dangerous to judge notability simply from what is in an article. Even a quick Google search would find sources such as [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Michig demonstrate notability. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which we favour per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "It only cites primary sources" is a common refrain at AfD, but per WP:PRIMARY and WP:WPNOTRS, primary sources are perfectly acceptable when the article includes "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source", rather than interpretations or inferences based on those sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Let me guess: This Neelix created tens of thousands of lousy quantum space redirect portals, thereby granting justification to any zealous, uncautious targeting of that which bears his name? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as G10 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lord's Chapel - Evansville, Indiana[edit]

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

No sources, not properly styled for Wikipedia, questionable notability at best JamesG5 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flower of Life (geometry). MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metatron's Cube[edit]

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

Pure original research and synthesis of unrelated ideas. The only sources for this claim are to WP:FRINGE beliefs and there is no independent notice that we would require for a stand-alone fringe article. jps (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unless reliable sources can be found for it which seems unlikely: a search turns up quite a few refs but all fringe ones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is gratuitously invalid deletionism over an obviously extraordinarily notable subject, with a presently sub-par (nonetheless good-looking and well formatted) Wikipedia article. I'm not even a specialist in this field, just a casual noob, and I know that it's notable geometrically, culturally, artistically, historically, or otherwise. But you ignored all those obvious categories just to pigeonhole it as the one thing (some fringe theory about something) that you could try to disqualify. WP:OR is text "for which no reliable, published sources exist", not text for which the sources Wikipedians haven't posted yet, you haven't found yet, you don't know how to find, or you don't want to find. Deletion is not a valid response to a subpar article, period. You don't delete it; you fix it, you call others to action, or you just walk away. — Smuckola (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this may indeed be a notable cultural meme however I cannot see any scholarly artcles relatred to the subject. Certainly none of the references approach the standard we require. If suitable references can be found I'd be happy to reverse this opinion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The entity exists as an "esoteric" idea, "aether research" and such, but the article should be better sourced, e.g. from these Google Scholar materials. There seem to be even two meditation-assitance patents mentioning the term ;)... If no RS are provided soon, then delete. Zezen (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article seems hopelessly unclear as is, but I'm not able to evaluate if it could be defended with better sourcing. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise, it presumably appears in the book cited in reference and if so should be tied more closely to its source. 9and50swans (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN and unsourced. The references don't actually mention a "Metatron's Cube", and after five years, it's looking like actual references aren't going to appear. The residual content in this article would make for a good half-paragraph in the Flower of life article. Sneftel (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a summary of what has already been published, and not a publisher of original thought. For this to remain, someone needs to identify 2-3 sources which feature Metatron's Cube as their subject. Right now, 0 sources have been identified. Someone please point out the good sources if they are here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mickopedia[edit]

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

This website lacks notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find in-depth coverage either. I propose we also delete Template:Mickopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no better signs of improvement as well. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Tolkien Society#Local groups. Content has already been merged into the parent article. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Tolkien Society[edit]

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

Non-notable Tolkien society. Prod tag removed by VMS Mosaic with an edit summary suggesting that there may be good coverage in two or more books, left a note on user's talk page requesting what they are over two weeks but got no response. Two best I found: [100] (inclusion in a publication of another society) and [101] (mention) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis there's no evidence of independent reliable coverage about this university society to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding frequent mention of the society in various academic sources, but it's mostly just a brief mention like this one. For instance this source mentions their journal while this one uses one of their books as a source. So far I'm not entirely seeing enough to really show that they'd be influential in the way that Wikipedia would require for notability, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: The article says that this is an offshoot of a larger organization, The Tolkien Society. Given that we do have mention of this society in some RS, we could probably merge and redirect this to the parent article. There's a subsection there at The_Tolkien_Society#Local_groups and we could probably merge a very small amount of information about this group and what they've done, mainly the journal and book(s) they've written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the book appears to have been released through the larger society. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Tolkien_Society#Local_groups. I've merged the pertinent information into the article, so we could reasonably redirect to that section of the article. This local group might not necessarily merit its own article, but it does seem like it should merit a mention somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per above and WP:BRANCH. Seems like the best solution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Songs, Volume 1 (Bing Crosby album)[edit]

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

Non notable compilation. Koala15 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vinylcruft. The ridiculous references clearly establish the article as such, along with the entire lack of notability of this record.TheLongTone (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No convincingly better sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain this fits in to the listing of 78 albums by Crosby and has historical significance showing the gradual updating to vinyl. Will add more info to it in next few days. MACWILMSLO

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lafarge (company). More specifically: Consensus that Ductal is not, by itself, notable, there's some support for a redirect, any merging that is attempted can be considered as an editorial question at the page on Lafarge. joe decker ^talk 15:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable commercial product? as the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. At best, if this product is notable but simply best known through the brand name, it may be salvageable but I'm not entirely sure about that. Pinging the only still active interested user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Lafarge (company) per WP:PRODUCT. Vrac (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Does not appear to meet stand-alone notability requirements. Not sure the merge would be successful but happy to let someone take a crack at it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom and above editor that it doesn't have the in-depth coverage necessary to warrant a stand-alone article. Have no problem with a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahmood Quadri[edit]

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

Self-sourced biography, notability unclear. Is just being a judge or a college principal enough to be notable for Wikipedia? kashmiri ^TALK 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Maxwell[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. None of the references is both independent and in depth. Contested deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily within the Notability requirements - have added a small amount to the article NealeFamily (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skunk Studios, Inc.[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable company article as the best I found was this, this, this and this. Pinging interested users Czar, SuperHamster, The1337gamer, VQuakr and Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other video games users I initially missed Esquivalience, Salvidrim, DMacks, Bovineboy2008, Samwalton9, Comatmebro, SoWhy, David Fuchs, Wizardman and NinjaRobotPirate. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is questionable. I've found numerous trivial mentions and countless press releases. I ignored those. Then I started finding lots and lots hits for the co-founder and original CEO, Margaret Wallace. It seems like Wallace is significantly more notable than the company she helped to establish. For example, [102] and [103] from Bloomberg Businessweek, both of which are more about Wallace than Skunk Studios. Still, I think it counts toward something. Amid the various announcements, I found this one on Gamezebo, which says it's the first HD hidden object game. One could easily say that this belongs in an article about the game, not the studio, but maybe that counts, too. I checked Gamasutra and Gamesindustry.biz, but there wasn't really a lot going on there outside of press releases and coverage specifically of Wallace. I'm still trying to find a secondary source that describes the company's history without seguing into a profile of Wallace. There are several articles about Wallace that describe her as a major player in the casual games market, and, as an example, they cite that she founded Skunk Studios. For example: [104] in Fortune. I don't know how much weight to put on that. If they say that she's notable for having founded the company, does that make the company notable, too? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete At this point there's nothing in the article to demonstrate notability, and cursory searches of Google didn't turn up anything like a feature on the studio or the like. I looked at the games that have Wikipedia articles, and none of them sport a real review from a reputable third party that would suggest their games are notable either. Towards Ninja's comment above, notability isn't inherited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alright, I'll buy that it's inherited notability. Would be nice to find a way to save the article, but I'm not really seeing it. WP:ORG does say that a famous founder doesn't give an organization a pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World of Guns: Gun Disassembly[edit]

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

Little or no evidence of notability WP:GNG (fails WP:NGAMES essay). Guess this should be deleted. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable game failing WP:GNG with no reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see entries in various lists, but nothing substantial. Short mention here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xacore[edit]

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

Another questionably notable and improvable company article as the best I found was this and this and the history simply shows how much attention this article has gotten since starting in March 2010. Pinging tagger Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that has had some WP:SPA attention and has featured then lost some advertising content. Highbeam returns a few routine announcements but nothing to establish this as more than a routine firm going about its business. I see nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poorly written. Mirror360 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Howard (musician)[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2011. Only reference provided is to a non-reliable site. My own searches have not turned up any significant coverage (although admittedly this might be challenging with his common name). FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite apparent sockpuppetry in some of the !votes, there is a consensus for at least a weak keep. Agree with some contributors that it is borderline - this article would benefit from some thorough research into additional reliable sources, if it's to survive here in the long term. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PlagScan[edit]

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

No evidence of notabilty. Only one source appears to be independent and that hardly demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PlagScan is popular for it's plagiarism checking service especially in Germany. On Alexa.com website PlagScan has a global rank around 25,000.^[1] This is quite good and even better than PlagTracker and Unplag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumgarner (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [105][106][107]. Also see refs in Unplag and PlagTracker. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/plagscan.com

Week keep. The first of KVNG's sources looks okay, the second looks like a warmed over blog post on the first, and the third is a trivial mention. However, [108], which, along with the iffy nature of KVNG's second source, may be close enough. --joe decker ^talk 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Kvng and Joe Decker.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PlagScan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a higher Alexa Ranking than Unplag and PlagTracker. Many outside sources refer to PlagScan, see external list, therefore the requirements for significant coverage of reliable sources are met. --knopfie ^talk 19:50, 22 November (UTC)
Keep - They are respected and have an impact in the educational field. PlagScan exists many years now, Unplug has just been launched in 2014 and has a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knopfiie (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. without prejudice to a redirect if the fellow is mentioned at the target article. joe decker ^talk 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ala al-Maliki[edit]

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

This unfortunate Iraqi does not satisfy WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2004 in Iraq.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about his beheading rises to the level of warranting an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per E.M.Gregory above. Agree with nom and other editor that there is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homs offensive (October 2015)[edit]

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

Only one source in the article discusses this in detail, fails WP:GNG. Also near clone of Daraa offensive (October 2015) Mdann52 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added another Yahoo News source. Syria regime in new offensive as Putin blasts US, Yahoo News, 16-10-15 There are plenty more. Guru Noel (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom no longer valid at time of vote. You will need another argument. Guru Noel (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a valid argument against deletion to just say "Nom no longer valid", you need to provide an actual reason. - SantiLak (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is no longer valid as there are 2 sources discussing it in detail, I added another one, 2 comments up. I'll repeat in case it was overlooked for some reason - ~~Keep~~ Added another Yahoo News source. Syria regime in new offensive as Putin blasts US, Yahoo News, 16-10-15 There are plenty more. I'll go add a BBC one too [109] Guru Noel (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added contradict the unsourced (most likely OR) start date of the offensive you inserted (6 October). Instead they give a totally different start date (15 October). And a lack of subsequent sources on an offensive in Homs province (for more than three weeks since than) suggests it was only a one-day operation and making it highly non-notable to warrant its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inconsistencies in sources about the start date and likely insignificant nature of this engagement make it non-notable. Can be covered in the parent article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a small one-day operation, not an "offensive". Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be plenty notable, but reporting is minimal due to the whole 'warzone' thing. Series of airstrikes, multiple settlements changing hands, fighting ongoing as of today, significant deathtoll. I'd note that the objection to the word offensive doesn't have much basis in the actual definition of the word, and Peacemaker67 has accidentally repeated his opinion. 92.25.136.209 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've just been looking more into this, there's very little reporting in western media, but there are actually plenty of sources, they're just biased (ofc pretty much all sources are biased, but wiki accepts the bbc but not, for eg, http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151118/1030341421/syrian-army-advances-near-palmyra.html or http://aranews.net/2015/11/leishmaniasis-breaks-out-among-syrian-army-forces-near-palmyra/ Nevertheless, evidence for notability & ongoingness of this offensive/operation/frontline/advance/whatever, is ample. 92.25.136.209 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Seems to have been developed by WP:SPA/s. Amateur orchestra, no evidence of notability. Dweller (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I cannot find any evidence that this amateur orchestra is sufficiently notable to keep. BabelStone (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better than some Books links. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on google or gnews. No refs in article. Szzuk (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Main Tu Kanyakumari[edit]

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

After compilation of trivia from all gossip columns, the article writes about reviews of the song. The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes and there's no better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South West Healthcare[edit]

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

Reason Enj23ui3u1 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cat=O Page not needed

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrightHR[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, as there is insufficient non-trivial coverage in indepedendent sources. I have already PRODed it, so there have been efforts to expand the article and provide references. I would suggest redirecting it to Peninsula Business Services, to which it is linked Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this Wikipedia page and have continued to work on it to add credibility and make it more noteworthy. Thank you for recognising the work that has so far been put in to make this article more noteworthy, I can assure you that I will continue to work on the page to make it as relevant and reliable as possible.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed deletion and I'm confident I can help clear up any confusion.

I believe the reasons being given for proposed deletion are based on there being limited non-trivial coverage, no independent coverage and content forking. I'll address them below:

Ther is link, however BrightHR is not part of Peninsula Business Services. BrightHR is a separate company, co-founded by the former Managing Director and Head of Marketing of accountancy firm Sage. The company is backed by Peter Done who is the main investor. Peter Done is the owner and managing director of Peninsula Business Services. During its founding period, BrightHR been fortunate to be able to rely on Peninsula Business Services for various resources. BrightHR is based in The Peninsula Building in Manchester. Peninsula Business Services operates from the first 6 floors of the building, whereas BrightHR is based on floor 9. The Peninsula is a commercial office skyscraper with a number of businesses occupying it, these include BrightHR, Laterooms as well as being the home of the British Transport Police in Manchester. As BrightHR develops it will become clearer that the two businesses are separate. Done is an investor in and owner of a number of businesses outside Peninsula Business Services many of which have their own Wikipedia entry, BetFred being just one example. I understand the original redirect was put in place to Peninsula Business Services, however I hope this demonstrates why this redirect was inappropriate.

In terms of notability and the quality of the sources go, BrightHR has been featured in a number of news sites and publications following the release of the academic research the company commissioned which was lead by the UK's leading behaviuoral psychologist Manchester University's Professor Sir Cary Cooper. This has seen Professor Sir Cary Cooper, BrightHR and the results of this report featured in a wide range of publications including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Scotsman and has seen the story being featured on around 50 different radio stations across the UK. This academic research should be seen as non-trivial and the publications which have covered it are independent. This volume of coverage in itself adds a level of notability and credibility to the company.

In addition to the two founders being interviewed for the BDaily article referenced in this article, the company's Co-Founder & Chief Marketing Officer has been featured in Marketing Week, which is the UK's leading marketing publication and he is to present at the UK's most prestigious marketing conference The Festival of Marketing. This should give some indication for the level of esteem in which BrightHR's marketing and PR activities are held with the marketing community and how they have made the company, its output and its professionals relevant to a broader audience. Again this is independent coverage and non-trivial coverage.

This is only the beginning of this article. I have every intention of creating a really relevant and and useful resource. I will continue to add independent references and include non-trivial content.

I've not created loads of business pages, however I have created some that have taken on a life of their own (which is how I believe it should be) and I'd like to think that if it's allowed to develop this article will go on to become one of those articles.

Thank you for your consideration and i hope you will agree to let me continue to develop this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicsqueaker (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as News and browser found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would probably verge on keep than delete as there are signs of notability. If no other option then as nominator says should be redirected.Blethering Scot 18:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best ref is indeed the Marketing Week articles: unfortunately, it is about neither the company nor the founder; it gives him a paragraph to discusses his company as one example one of about a dozen companies included, giving it less space than most of the others. I do not consider it significant coverage. As for the other articles, most of them show that we need an article on Sir Cary Cooper. The firm merely funded the work; Sir Cooper did it. Other refs contain links to the sort of incidental mentions that do not show notability, such as their cofounder sharing a platform with a more notable person. I have learned in article about companies to actually read the references, not judge them by their titles or what people may say here in supporting them. Seeing referencing of this sort, I would delete for promotionalism, not move to draft space, and not make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Begum, Shelina (2015-11-05). "Tech firm is off to a bright start". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Manchester people management software company, BrightHR, is ‘set to revolutionise the industry’ with the launch of a new cloud based HR software specifically for SMEs.
  It is being headed by the former MD of Sage Accountants’ Division, Paul Tooth and its ex-head of marketing Paul Harris with support from Peninsula’s Peter Done.
  The people management software, which was launched at the CIPD conference in Manchester this week, has been developed to help SMEs ‘effortlessly’ implement HR admin processes, and get specialist knowledge on topics ranging from employment law to happiness.
  With a multi-million pound investment, BrightHR offers a cloud based HR solution for SMEs says Tooth.
2. Begum, Shelina (2015-11-04). "BrightHR lights up Manchester with #CIPD15 Campaign". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Bright HR, the newly-launched cloud-based HR software, is showcasing its recent rebrand with a stand-out taxi advertising campaign in Manchester, allowing attendees at this week’s CIPD Annual Conference and Exhibition to travel in style.
  Co-ordinated by Media Agency Group as part of its continued work with Bright HR, a full wrap taxi campaign will see the brand make a 'strong impact' in the city.
  Those visiting the event will be able to travel by taxi from Bright HR’s Manchester office in Victoria Place to the event at Manchester Central.
3. Bacon, Jonathan (2015-10-21). "How to find creative marketing talent". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  For small businesses, meanwhile, starting out with a strong creative culture is vital for future growth. Bright HR, a provider of HR management software, has placed great importance on its recruitment processes and internal management structure as it seeks to become a dominant player in its B2B market.
  This translates to the layout of the company’s Manchester office, which is primarily open-plan with a large artificial garden in the centre of the room. Bright HR’s 70-strong staff are encouraged to sit and share ideas across different departments. The office also incorporates a range of games including an Xbox console, spacehoppers and Nerf guns to make the working environment more enjoyable.
  Paul Harris, CMO at Bright HR, says that talented, creative developers are in short supply in the technology sector, meaning that companies need to create an internal culture that stands out in order to attract them. Given its ambition to become a disruptive force in the HR software market, the company wants its staff to think for themselves and take risks.
4. Draycott, Richard (2015-08-20). "BrightHR prepares for new brand launch with Media Agency Group support". The Drum. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Online staff management platform BrightHR has appointed Manchester’s Media Agency Group as its sole media partner as the company prepares to rebrand from OnlineHR from November onwards.
  The Media Agency Group has been tasked with increasing brand awareness, generating revenue and raising the profile of the company as it rebrands as BrightHR, which will see MAG assume the responsibility of all media planning and buying for BrightHR, in order to target its ideal audience, which is comprised of members of the HR professionals, referral partners, small business owners and employees.
  Bright HR is a cloud-based Human Resources service that provides small to medium sized businesses with an easy way to manage their day-to-day HR needs. It takes the hassle out of managing absenteeism, giving the busy HR professional or business owner the chance to concentrate on other aspects of management, like employee engagement and growing their business in the most effective way possible.
5. Malia, Simon (2015-08-19). "BrightHR appoints Media Agency Group to promote rebrand". Bdaily. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Salford-based Media Agency Group has been appointed by BrightHR, and will be responsible for all advertising spend for the soon-to-be rebranded business.
  Bright HR is a cloud-based Human Resources service that assists small to medium sized businesses to manage their day-to-day HR needs. The firm has its headquarters in Manchester.
  Specialising in managing absenteeism, BrightHR works with in-house HR professionals and business owners, freeing them to concentrate on other aspects of management.
  The business is currently known as HR Online. Media Agency Group has been commissioned to increase brand awareness, generate revenue and raise the profile of the company as it rebrands as BrightHR.
6. Chapman, Stephen (2015-09-25). "Doodledo Motion wins BrightHR pitch". Prolific North. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  
  HR Online, which will re-emerge following a rebrand as BrightHR, has appointed DoodleDo Motion as its video agency, following a competitive pitch.
  ...
  BrightHR was formed by former Sage duo, Paul Tooth and Paul Harris. It’s part of the Manchester-based Peninsula Group.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BrightHR to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather term these as minor notices and press releases. Look at their wording: they repeat the company's own description of themselves in the same words. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says:

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

The articles provide "deep coverage" of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't consider a profile in a local newspaper as considerable and notable coverage, it's pushed by their PR team and likely to get some column inches in the niche paper because it's a local interest piece. The entire article is a giant advert for a non-notable company that has done nothing of any significance. The page is just a PR dump of anything that can paint the company in a positive light, every mention in press and every time the co-founder shared a stage with someone half-famous at festivals of marketings - once you take the fluff and non-encyclopaedic content, and address the COI and neutrality issues, nothing will remain of the article anyway. Rayman60 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrightHR used to be called HR Online according to the Prolific North source I quoted above. Here are some non-local sources about the subject when it was called HR Online.
1. Schindler, Martin (2015-02-17). "Sage HR Online – Cloud-Personal-Verwaltung für KMU und SMB" (in German). Silicon.de. Archived from the original on 2015-11-26. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
  Silicon.de is a news site founded by Rob Lewis in 1998.
2. "Sage traz gestão de HR em cloud para Portugal". Computerworld (in Portuguese). 2015-03-23. Archived from the original on 2015-11-26. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
3. Clapaud, Alain (2015-04-07). "SIRH : Sage mise sur une approche hybride on premise/Cloud". LeMagIt (in French). TechTarget. Archived from the original on 2015-11-26. Retrieved 2015-11-26.
Cunard (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some coverage clearly exists, but it is not substantive enough to let this company clear GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is defined at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline as:
address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
How do the sources not provide substantial coverage of the subject when they "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail"?
Cunard (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blethering Scot (talk · contribs), you commented above before the relist. What are your thoughts about the references? Cunard (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monbo Time[edit]

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

Non-notable song by non-notable composers. Does not meet WP:GNG. If references can be produced, could be added to article on Bill Monbouquette. ubiquity (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I entirely agree, no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer's Kit[edit]

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

Spam article on an unreleased game for which the Kickstarter hasn't even gone live. Article written by the designer. This should be an easy A7/G11 speedy deletion, but taking to AfD for procedural reasons--after the author himself removed the speedy (quickly reverted) and offered a WP:OTHERSTUFF defense on the talk page, an "independent" editor with no other edits removed the speedy tag without explanation or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent sources of note. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are plans to create this game, the game does not exist at this point in time and there's really no actual coverage of this proposed game in places Wikipedia would consider reliable or in-depth. The company itself may be notable - a Parent's Choice Award can be an indication of notability - but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the company itself and we need to be able to establish that the product is notable now. It's fairly difficult for games to establish notability prior to their release, as you have to have a lot of coverage to accomplish this. I'm aware that most RS won't cover pre-release games unless they're done by exceptionally well known (read, mainstream) companies, but the coverage is still a requirement and Wikipedia is not here to make up the difference. I have no problem with this getting resubmitted once the game hits the streets and gains more coverage, but I'd recommend that this go through AfC given that the main contributor (and the person most likely to recreate it) has a WP:COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobi Ninja[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:NMUSIC, no significant covereage BMK (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found the following: [110] from mtvU, [111] from Time (just a trivial mention, really), [112] from Rolling Stone (very brief), [113] and [114] from Billboard, [115] from Noisecreep. Problem is, they're either interviews or basically trivial mentions. I can't find a single review in a reliable source. I guess I'll let other people decide. I won't protest if it's deleted, but I think there's enough coverage to write a credible stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with stubifying it is that the article was basically written by members of the band, so they're likely to just re-build it. BMK (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to those found NinjaRobotPirate (and I agree with their assessment, if those were all there were I would be leaning on the weak delete side of the fence), there are other RS out there, and from different parts of the country. You have this from NC, this Ebony article, this article from FL (more than a mention, but not too in-depth), and this SMI article from Seattle. In addition, you get a bunch more trivial mentions, again from lots of different sources (HuffPo, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, AllHipHop, Mstarz, The Jersey Journal, CL Charlotte, Bowery Boogie), as well as dozens of others which are simply announcements of upcoming gigs. I think this definitely passes WP:BASIC, as well as passing WP:GNG. The national tour mentioned in the SMI also indicates that they could pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are any' of those more than mere mentions? BMK (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - yes, all 4 of the ones I separated out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely enough notability based on reliable sources here per User:Onel5969 comment. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 05:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hosein Soleymani[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There seems to be a duplicate at Hossein soleimani (with lowercase s) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Oiyarbepsy. ~~I flagged it for speedy deletion per A10~~. Warm regards, Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization redirect seemed appropriate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Persian Wikipedia article has a long list of references (which I am not qualified to evaluate) and that this academic source romanises the name as "Hossein Soleimani". 86.24.88.241 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ip's comment is well noted, but like them, I am not qualified to evaluate the Persian Wiki's references. I waited through two relists to see if there was an interested person who could comment on the veracity of the Arabic sources, but alas, no takers. So I am left with the humble tools afforded those of us on English Wikipedia. Using those, like the nom and the above editor, I could find nothing to show this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the sources cited in the Persian Wikipedia article are in Arabic. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knee High Media Japan[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable and questionably improvable as the best I found was this and this. Pinging taggers Epeefleche and RP459. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging interested subject users Yunshui, Yamaguchi先生, WhisperToMe, Mr. Stradivarius and Nihonjoe. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence or claim of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources (external links) mentions the business in any depth, and the article appears to be promotional. --DAJF (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Brenneman[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE nothing of significance at Google News or Books. No indication of meeting WP:NACTOR, specifically "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Can't find anything that would suggest she meets WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Mendez Livioco[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this. Pinging the only still active user Kguirnela. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is something that cannot be verified through the internet alone due to age. It also needs to be searched using the Philippines language. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 15:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The one article used as a source might sem to indicate importance in the broadcasting industry. Some of the content of the article seems also derived from an obituary, so that needs to be searched for. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough out there; it just needs to be found. E.g. [116]. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhalo Rajakumari[edit]

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

Unremarkable film that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Kadhalo Rajakumari" "Mahesh Suparaneni" "Namitha Pramod" "Nara Rohit" "BV Srinivas" "Nara Rohith"

Temporary delete and okay with a userfy to draft space. Sorry nominator, but the the topic of this upcoming film's production IS getting coverage to meet WP:GNG, but has not yet begun to film... making this article simply a bit TOO SOON. Can be returned and expanded as soon as filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to draft space per Schmidt. --joe decker ^talk 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ilse Witch. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walker and the Shade of Allanon[edit]

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

I see no reason to suppose this individual story is notable, especially since the collection from which it comes is at present not the subject of an article...if it was, I wouls make this a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ilse Witch, the notable novel it was originally a part of. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 08:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stathis[edit]

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

Sources in the article are almost all either run by him or fringe and not acceptable for a BLP. The CNN source has a one sentence mention. His books are self-published. I couldn't find anything convincing when I searched. I don't think his appearance on the Thom Hartmann show etc is enough. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at News and browser but nothing convincingly better. Pinging tagger WereSpielChequers as the only other tagger Toddst is unfortunately no longer active. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely add catimprove to an article, when I do it usually means as with this one that it is so far outside my area of expertise that I can't properly categorise it. In this case I added living people and catimprove. Then came back later and removed something 404 sourced and negative..... As for the deletion, notability is marginal at best and the subject is contentious - deletion is probably for the best unless others can find good sources. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The argument is about whether or not the article passes WP:EVENT. The article has been relisted twice, and, whereas there is some numerical advantage of the delete votes, as far as numbers are concerned, it is in the range of no consensus vote. More importantly, there are good arguments from both sides, policy-based, in particular, that it passes WP:GNG, and the lengthy discussion did not discover arguments why one of the sides is clearly wrong. In this situation, I close the discussion as no consensus. Given that the event happened 20 years ago, it would probably not reasonable to try to AfD it again before several years have passed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 826[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:EVENT. While one passenger died, the plane suffered no damage and landed safety and the incident did not lead to any long term changes or impacts on the airline industry. There was not even an investigation, or if there was one, it was not extensively covered. Planes encountering air turbulence is not that uncommon and unless it led to a major crash like American Airlines Flight 587, there is no reason to have articles on every single incident that occurs on a flight. Searching "United Airlines Flight 826" on any search engine mostly comes up results for the 1960 mid-air collision over New York, where one of the planes involved had the same flight number. A single death does not automatically merit notability, especially since the family did not file a lawsuit or anything The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and the in-depth coverage spanned years and thus passing WP:EVENT's WP:PERSISTENCE. Once again a misuse of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WP:NOTNEWS states very clearly it it meant to prevent articles on topics such as "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities..." There is nothing "routine" about, outside of BOAC Flight 911, arguably the most notable clear air turbulence event in modern aviation history (AA 587 went down because of wake turbulence, not clear air turbulence). WP:EVENT also is meant to preclude topics that only received "routine reporting" as this topic certainly has not. Massive worldwide coverage when the event happened [117][118][119] and years of coverage afterward.[120][121][122] And The Legendary Ranger, how did you decide there was no investigation when it not only it took a second of a google search to find both NTSB summaries ([123][124]) at the top of g-search of NTSB United 826, but those investigation summaries (and reporting on them) are already in the article? And a topic with a similar name that is easier to find internet-based coverage has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable for a mention never mind a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Clear-air turbulence. It doesn't sound notable enough to have its own article, but it could be added to a section titled Notable incidents in Clear-air turbulence. There have been a few of such incidents over the years that made it into the news, if memory serves me right, although most of them did not involved any fatality. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one did involve a fatality. There's far too much sourced topic-specific content to be merged to the Clear-air turbulence article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to merge everything. Sources like the NTSB's interim press release or the ASN entry are redundant, in this case, and trivia like the flight attendant hanging upside-down can be safely omitted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced flight details (altitude, flight path, weather predictions, etc.), timeline, amount of force, injuries, actions by the crew and the subsequent investigation are all out-of-place in the turbulence article. With this source from 2011, there's even more than can be included. Two similar sources in this article has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of content in another article (that issue was corrected anyway). --Oakshade (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Clear-air turbulence. I agree with Deeday-UK. Ruler1091 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)— Ruler1091 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Appears to be a one-event news article with insufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Any pertinent details could be added to the Clear-air turbulence article if deemed relevant. --DAJF (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's been a great amount of WP:HEY work done on this article since almost all the of !votes. It should be noted that all the the delete !votes gave absolutely no rationale based on any of WP's policies or guidelines, whether it be WP:GNG, WP:EVENT (and WP:PERSISTENCE) or even non-guidelines like WP:AIRCRASH. "Appears" or "doesn't appear notable" isn't proper rationale for deleting or keeping. --Oakshade (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:PERSISTENCE at face value.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a review, perhaps the creation of a disambiguation page and renaming this page United Airlines Flight 826 (1997) or something along those lines would appease objections due to redirects.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. sst✈^discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade's reasons above (October 30 post). I note that Oakshade has done a lot of good work to expand the article. Perhaps Bahb the Illuminated is correct about requiring renaming though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable enough to have a stand alone article Samf4u (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, is there any rationale based on WP's actual polices or guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The polices and guidelines are interpreted by the editors who use them. The incident makes a good newspaper or magazine article, but a stand alone article in an encyclopedia it is not. Samf4u (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which exact polices or guidelines are you interpreting to mean the topic doesn't pass them and how did you reach that conclusion?--Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable by WP:NOTE. The incident was entirely preventable and not so much more important if a passenger died of injuries. As it might pass by Aviation accidents and incidents, it wasn't an important event and probably not memorable. Does not pass four criteria of WP:EVENT, and possibly which is strictly explained below and seems like WP:ROUTINE compared to other WP:MILL crashes which are also listed below. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this topic receiving significant coverage by multiple independent sources spanning several years not passing WP:NOTE? And why delete this article because the "incident was entirely preventable"? What does that have to do with WP:NOTE? Almost every aviation disaster was entirely preventable. And how is your subjective opinion that the topic is "probably not memorable" mean it doesn't pass our notability guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT* that's how it doesn't pass. Besides an un-fasten seat belt is preventable by the passenger, not the pilots or the flight attendants because they're not going to force you to wear it. There's no more than five references on the page, which one is heavily relied on. Anyways seven years later and has anything changed from this accident providing major changed to aviation of United Airlines or Internationally? No, it hasn't besides the retirement of one aircraft. Besides my 'probably not memorable' is based of Wikipedia:EVENTCRIT. It seems to fail WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:DEPTH (but that could be changed with more references). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT is easily passed as there has been significant coverage spanning several years. By explaining that there is significant coverage that is relied upon at this stage in the article from fourteen years after the event actually demonstrates more that it passes WP:EVENT and especially WP:EVENT's WP:PERSISTENCE - key part of Wikipedia:EVENTCRIT that you conveniently ignored. As far as the WP:VAGUEWAVE of five sub-categories of WP:EVENT, again that's all your subjective opinion and an example of WP:GAMETYPE. It easily passes WP:DIVERSE and WP:GEOSCOPE as there was a tone of international coverage, especially in Japan and easily passes WP:DEPTH as the in-depth coverage spanned many years.--Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it only had a history of years coverage following an NTSB report and that's it, nothing after; which counters WP:PERSISTENCE. With persistence, it was covered by a NTSB report, which as other accidents and incidents do, its a routine act which is taken. Inside the article, there is no mention of other international coverage, and another country that reported on it doesn't make it notable either again. Another recent article that was deleted by a death was American Airlines Flight 550, which was deleted by this talk which covers WP:GEOSCOPE (which was reported by the U.S. and the U.K and others), WP:EVENT (as it involved a pilot death), and other Wikipedia-related event notability problems. Even though I thought it was a big deal, it wasn't because there was strong evidence it happens.
A single death on an aircraft doesn't make it notable as I've learned, and here to comply with evidence who's to say that here by a simple search, an Air France flight in 1996, Eastern Airlines in October 1990, China Airlines in 1982, or Indian Airlines in 1980 aren't notable? All five are similar with one or two deaths. This article has, again, five sources that aren't diverse or internationally covered by anyone other than the Aviation departments (NTSB, FAA) and a simple news report by CNN and a book, and again some are heavily relied on. Which I've said does not give it the WP:GEOSCOPE (as this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created), WP:DEPTH (which the article only has 2 being CNN and the book), WP:DIVERSE (which is relaying information already used), and WP:LASTING (as the outcome of this event was only the retirement of one aircraft from an airline that can buy more, something that would make it lasting would be a lawsuit by the family) it needs to pass. Also saying that all of these pass using WP:VAGUEWAVE is being hypercritical as just say that 'pass' without further explanation doesn't explain why its notable, which I've corrected here in this paragraph. Quite literally, this article is one of the run-of-the-mill reports that happened commonly at the time. But I highly recommend reading the AFD for AA550 here because its similar arguments about a death on an aircraft. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An aviation incident can be notable with zero deaths. TWA Flight 841 (1979) had zero deaths and that aircraft even returned to service. The lack of significant coverage of other flight articles possibly not passing WP:NOTE as this one does pass it has nothing to do with this topic. Unless you value WP:AIRCRASH which stipulates there must be deaths (with no number requirement), there is not a WP:MUSTBEMULTIPLEDEATHS clause anywhere in Wikipedia. You just made that up. And of course this passes WP:GEOSCOPE as this was heavily covered by the international press, not just "locally in the United States" (By the way, there is not WP:MUST BE INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE clause anywhere in WP. Again, you've made up your own notablity criteria). Just because you don't see international coverage in the article, which isn't required anyway, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It took only seconds to find international coverage of this event, like that of BBC News.[125] WP:NOTE makes it very clear that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I would become familiar with the most basic clauses of WP:NOTE before citing it. And it might not be your intent, but by citing coverage that came eleven years after the NTSB investigation, as well as the initially coverage, you're just demonstrating further of this article passing WP:PERSISTENCE. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AIRCRASH it states "The accident was fatal to humans", not one, but multiple by this crash. By TWA Flight 841 (1979), even with zero deaths, it could pass from WP:AIRCRASH falling under serious damage caused to the aircraft or possibly the change to regulation.
Also, its bothering me that I'm "making up my own criteria", which I'm not, I've used whatever was on WP:EVENT and WP:AIRCRASH (sometimes not mentioning it, but I implied on it) and sticking it here, make consensus not a point. Sure I messed up on WP:NOTE, but other sources not used in the article yet doesn't make it WP:PERSISTENCE. There was probably a ton of news reports at the time, but it doesn't make the event lasting any further. Besides an NTSB report, like I said, is routine depending on how long it takes, and after that report nothing else was emphasized about the incident rather than it was a death caused by turbulence. Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT (One criteria does not trump all)! AND AGAIN, its a run-of-the-mill article as there are other similar incidents that had the same outcome! (Read below)
Contrary, there are other incidents involving a death or two which I mentioned last time, which are similar to this. And again, as this goes back in forth this is very similar to this talk, highly recommend reading it and looking up similar incidents like this here which are greater or equal to the resulting information of this incident. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WP:AIRCRASH states humans as it wouldn't make grammatical sense to say "human", thus appearing to limit to one person dying. That's just game playing. And yet another in-depth source from 2014, almost 20 years after the incident has been added to the article with additional content explaining the effect of the flight, further demonstrating this article easily passing WP:PERSISTENCE. TWA Flight 841 (1979) id not have serious damage - a single slat missing is not serious damage - and there is no confirmed change of regulation as a result of that non-fatal incident. And demanding that a topic that already passes WP:NOTE (which you admit now) and WP:EVENT pass multiple other sub-clauses (which this passes anyway) is appearing as grabbing at straws Wiki-lawyering. You may not like the fact this topic has received persistent in-depth coverage over two decades and perhaps feel it shouldn't pass WP:EVENT, but the fact it is does. --Oakshade (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again saying it passes contradicts what was said previously with WP:VAGUEWAVE like how does it pass the other four criteria? And it's not that I don't like this article (which I do like it personally because of what has been changed from the older versions), but there's no excuse for it not meeting the WP:EVENT criteria. When WP:NOTE was said, I was implying wrongfulness of WP:NNC, not WP:NOTE as a whole for clarification. ~~The problem with that other source too is that the part of the story was mentioned through a history of that aircraft.~~ (Sorry about WP:LAWYER, wasn't aware of that in honesty and I do see it passes WP:AIRCRASH now, but WP:EVENT?). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again you're ignoring the core criteria of WP:NOTE "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." - in which this topic received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. In this case that time was almost 20 years. You can't get around that. As for as satisfying your WP:LAWYER demand that it falls in line with every word is several sub-clauses (whilst you're now ignoring WP:PERSISTENCE which this clearly indicates even by the sources currently in the article), I've already written out in detail how it passes all of those above and not going to cut-and-paste them again. I only will add regarding WP:GEOSCOPE the sources currently in the article spanning many years are German, British and American so there's not even a question of passing that sub-clause. Just by saying "doesn't pass EVENT" when the evidence totally contradicts that doesn't make it so. We consider the facts, not our desire for what we want them to be. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why my statements including:

"Which I've said does not give it the WP:GEOSCOPE (as this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created), WP:DEPTH (which the article only has 2 being CNN and the book), WP:DIVERSE (which is relaying information already used), and WP:LASTING (as the outcome of this event was only the retirement of one aircraft from an airline that can buy more, something that would make it lasting would be a lawsuit by the family) it needs to pass." and
"Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT (One criteria does not trump all)".

I've explained why they don't meet a lot of times before, which seemed to be ignored and I don't know how to say it again rather than copying and pasting it from my previous paragraphs. As for WP:NOTE, there are other events like I've stated twice. Its not notable compared to them as they seem like common events with common tragedies. As I've stated:

"...to comply with evidence who's to say that here by a simple search, an Air France flight in 1996, Eastern Airlines in October 1990, China Airlines in 1982, or Indian Airlines in 1980 aren't notable? All five are similar with one or two deaths" and
"...looking up similar incidents like this here which are greater or equal to the resulting information of this incident."
"Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT."

Is there something not clear about saying this doesn't pass WP:EVENT that I've previously mentioned? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're just repeating the same red herrings that have nothing to do with this article passing WP:EVENT. Even if there are other events like this that don't pass NOTE, that has nothing to do with this article easily passing WP:NOTE. None of your arguments hold any weight. You've actually repeated the fictional WP:MUST BE INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE ("this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created") which even if that were necessary, this passes. If you'd like to change WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT ignore in-depth coverage by multiple sources persistent over a long period of time, you can make your case on those guidelines talk pages. You can't just invent your own guidelines in an AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment- The other crashes I was referring to earlier was apart of WP:MILL (which explains that they're all the same, compared to each other this is not notable). I never said anything about my 'creativity' of creating my own notability categories, you're putting words in my mouth as I've strictly used arguments following WP:EVENT which are all credibly ignored. At this point we were both red herring, not just myself (which is why this leads to my last comment since this discussion looped with no further progress), and I still haven't gotten feedback about how it passes the other four criteria besides the "WP:PERSISTENCE" argument based on a single source added. A book from 2014 doesn't change anything about it's notability if its just apart of the aircraft's history, and nothing more goes about it. Regards. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newly added 2014 coverage is about the event, not simply "aircraft's history." Every source about every aviation incident is about "aircraft history." Not sure where you're going with that. And I've already gone into explicit detail answering those WP:LAWYER exact sub-clauses buried deep in WP:EVENT you're demanding and how it meets all of them so there's no reason to repeat. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant event of CAT, and there are few others with even minor details.Hiobazard (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade (talk · contribs)'s excellent work on the article. Here is what the article looked like before Oakshade rewrote it. Oakshade's sources clearly demonstrate that United Airlines Flight 826 passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
That the event was discussed years later shows that it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. This 1997 event received nearly four pages of coverage more than a decade later in the 2011 book Stratospheric Flight: Aeronautics at the Limit published by Springer Science+Business Media.
Cunard (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is NOT an air accident and merely an incident. WP:NOTNEWS. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guideline? Any rationale of how in-depth coverage of this event spanning almost two decades applies to NOTNEWS?--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear evidence of lasting coverage and attention in reliable sources per Oakshade and Cunard. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia's coverage of turbulence concerns or of aviation safety in general. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Transformative Practice[edit]

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

Fails our WP:NFRINGE guideline for fringe theories/practices that are notable. No outside notice of this peculiar practice means we probably shouldn't have a dedicated article on it. jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is fringe, and there are not independent references. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substance beyond a narrative about this single group, no outside points of view or sources. The general concept (and criticisms) is covered in Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber).Cyrej (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Researchers[edit]

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

Seven-year old completely unreferenced stub with only one wick and few constructive (as in expanding the content) edits (all of them are minor changes, and none added sources). As for the subject itself, a GS brings up no secondary sources except this news article reporting the merge with Science Source (which isn't mentioned in the article at all). GNS returns no news articles covering the subject enough. GSS returns nothing usable either, at least that I could access. (GS=Google Search, GNS=Google News Search, GSIS=Google Scholar Search). Verdict:Unremarkable company stub consisting entirely of OR. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Photography-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Business-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of New York-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found no better signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article itself is outdated. When it was written in 2008, Photo Researchers and Science Source were independent stock agencies (although the latter was owned by the former). They have since merged, as the linked news article explains. That's why the merge isn't mentioned. Also:

"The company was founded by Peter Schults in his apartment on Manhattan's East 57th Street. At first running the business from his home, Mr. Schults amassed one of the largest collections of travel photography, covering many rare and exotic locations and cultures. To this day, if you pick up a book on geography or cultural anthropology or an atlas published between the 1950s and 1970s you are pretty much guaranteed to see Photo Researchers as a major photo source."

A quick Google Books (henceforth GBS) search reveals this, but of course, if no reliable sources state this directly, it cannot be in the article. Anyway, the GBS got nothing but endless zoology, ecology, geography, anthropology etc. books using photos from it/listing it in the photo credits, which is...not a good sign. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wikipedia article is the only source covering Photo Researchers in existence. (The news article I linked, and maybe others (especially on stock photography news sites) cover the merge, but this one might be the only source about the agency specifically. Some of the news articles I mentioned might explain the history of PR, but this might as well be the only source covering the agency itself and not the merge.

- Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just delete this since it obviously fails WP:NOTABILITY? Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Eidenier, Connie (1988). Photographer's Market, 1989. Cincinnati, Ohio: Writer's Digest. p. 542. ISBN 0898793319. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The book notes:
  Photo Researchers, Inc., 60 E. 56th St., New York NY 10022. (212) 758-3420. President: Robert Zentmaier. Computer-controlled agency for hundreds of photographers including the National Audubon Society Collection. Clients include ad agencies and publishers of textbooks, encyclopedias, film-strips, trade books, magazines, newspapers, calendars, greeting-cards, posters, and annual reports in US and foreign markets. Rarely buys outright; works on 50% stock sales and 30% assignments. General price range: $75-7,500. Submit model release with photo. Query with description of work, type of equipment used and subject matter available; arrange a personal interview to show portfolio; or submit portfolio for review. Reports in 1 month maximum. SASE. Subject Needs: All aspects of natural history and science; human nature (especially children and young adults 6-18 engaged in everyday activity); industry; "people doing what they do"; and pretty scenics to informational photos, particularly model-released people photos and property photos such as houses, ...
2. Berry, Marilou (1993-10-18). "Photo-Meister Ask Anita Duncan For A Particular Photo And She'll Deliver". Evansville Courier & Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  The Indiana University graduate, who has a degree in fine arts, gravitated five years ago to Photo Researchers, a 36-year-old stock photo agency representing over 2,000 of the world's best photographers.
  As the company's marketing and permissions director, Ms. Duncan deals with some of the world's largest publishing companies and advertising agencies and handles the company's trade shows. It is she who grants permission to publish pictures secured from her company and to set fees for their use.
  ...
  Photo Researchers provides photographs for hundreds of advertisers, publishers, corporations, even individuals.
  ...
  Photo Researchers boasts 60,000 images in its Science Source and its 500,000-image Nature Source is The National Audubon Society Collection. In it is the famous Tom McHugh Collection, along with the best work from over 300 established nature photographers.
  These days, Ms. Duncan is busy captioning 10,000 photos and indexing them for Kodak's Picture Exchange.
3. Walker, David (August 1996). "Photo Researchers sold to managers". Photo District News. 16 (8): 10. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  Reports on Photo Researchers founder Peter Schults' sale of his majority interest in the agency to Robert Zentmaier and Bug Sutton, who have managed the operation and owned a minority interest for the past several years. Reason behind Schults' decision; Number of employees at the company; Number of photographers represented; Organizational structure.
4. Tydeman, William E. (2013). Conversations with Barry Lopez: Walking the Path of Imagination. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 8. ISBN 9780806150482.
  The book notes:
  In the mid-seventies Peter Schults, the founder of Photo Researchers, an agency in New York that represented Barry's photographic work, began representing his literary work as well."
  This source provides trivial coverage, so I am not using it to establish notability, but am listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.
5. "Lifelong bird lover dies at 82". New Canaan Advertiser. 2007-11-08. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  The article notes:
  [Jane S. Kinne] was one of the founding members of Photo Researchers, a stock photo agency at which she worked and served as president for almost 30 years.
  This source provides trivial coverage, so I am not using it to establish notability, but am listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Photo Researchers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is, in fact, notable, it needs citations like the ones you linked. In fact I think it needs to be rewritten entirely. Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Appears to be SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consider discussing a merger on the talk page. Sandstein 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Square arson attack[edit]

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

Delete This event is not notable, see WP:LASTING Proud Novice (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a spin-off from David Twersky, and there is too much material here to be merged back into the parent article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Twersky is not a very long page. The only reason that "there is too much material here to be merged back into the parent article", is because all of this detail is not relevant to David Twersky. There is it section in that article (Aron Rottenberg Incident) that sufficiently details the the facts of this episode that are relevant to David Twersky. It's not a notable event, and I think this may be an example of WP:POVSPLIT. Proud Novice (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a significantly notable event, backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. There is an alleged connection to David Twersky, but including this material in that article would be inappropriate; It belongs as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT 73.138.114.150 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately I don't find significant enough coverage to merit an article. Fails WP:EVENT. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keepThis is an important incident in learning about religious coercion and intimidation in America. The separate entry allows this incident to be easily searchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmo56 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC) — Alexmo56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Valid, sourced, notable incident. per WP:CRIME and WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to New Square, New York#Controversies, it's already described there in New Square, New York#Neighborhood disputes, otherwise this is just WP:CONTENTFORKING. Nothing will be lost, and everything will be put into proportion and its proper perspective and context by summarizing the main points and putting them in those sections. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to New Square, New York#Controversies. The incident is marginally notable at best, and extremely confusing for the reader (at least this reader) because it is apparently embedded in some sort of arcane internecine sectarian conflict. If it stays, it should be on the town/village page to give readers a fighting chance of unpacking the context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Mackey[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and. and WP:BIO. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the Canadian delsort page. The nominator had added to it to the U.S. project, apparently by mistake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is based almost entirely on primary sources — her own website, her staff profile on the website of the channel she works for — which cannot carry notability. The only piece of reliable source coverage here is an article about a purely local charity fundraiser in her own hometown, but that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG if it's the only valid source you've got. The role is enough to make her notable in principle — but the level of sourcing necessary to make her includable in fact is lacking. So, yeah, WP:TOOSOON it is. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks to Rich Farmbrough. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitafi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. clpo13_(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There is this, but it is just a passing mention. Nothing else strikes me as a reliable source. /wia /tlk 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: given Rich Farmbrough's solid researching, I'm amending this to a keep. I don't currently have access to the fourth reference, which would be a key one to assess notability, but the others certainly do establish existence from colonial sources. /wia /tlk 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give a strong presumption of notability to human ethnic groups, but I can find basically no information on this tribe. Not even enough to be sure that it is not a mistaken name for some other tribe. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- After recent edits, I am now neutral on the issue. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several google book hits, but from colonial era documents as well as Pakistan era documents. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be added that this was initially a proposed deletion on 29 October 2015‎, which was overturned and deprodded shortly after by 2602:30a:2efe:f050:6c6f:3b3d:9f18:9068 (talk · contribs) who was later blocked for disruption. As the article currently stands, there are no reliable sources which would support the existence of this article, nor have there been since the inception of this article on 12 July 2013‎ from what I can tell. Should evidence of reliable and non-trivial coverage of this tribe come forward during this discussion please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page for consideration. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of recent changes by RIch Farmbrough. I defer to experienced editors whether or not the page should be merged to a parent article or not. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found half a dozen references that demonstrate the existence of the tribe. If the subject can not be shown worthy of its own article Merge into a suitable parent article, which can be created if required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rich Farmbrough's edits look pretty good at first glance. User:Wikiisawesome, User:Antrocent, User:Yamaguchi先生: care to revisit? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Moio[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:Entertainer; he may have had some roles in notable TV shows (however) his roles weren't significant. Also doesn't pass WP:GNG. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No indication he is a martial artist - modified the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REP Interactive[edit]

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

This article was not properly made by a single purpose account. A quick google search reveals that he works for the company. Thus, there is a conflict of interest. The article also uses peacock terms. It should either be drafted or deleted. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I would gave probably just tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Anyway, I don't see any coverage that isn't PR-newswire type stuff, like this. They've won marketing awards, but nothing that would confer enough notability to keep, I don't think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft this may be a less-than-competent job of coi writing, but I think that sourcing all the awards and other material might well show the company notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The blatantly promotional tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Citobun (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The hardest part of this was figuring out who all the sockpuppets are. All of these are WP:SPAs:

Note, that includes people on both sides of the argument, including the nom. Anyway, throw all that away and I see NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid Delshad[edit]

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

This entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Farshid Delshad" entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:NOTE. Lack of significant secondary source coverage independent of the subject himself. — Benedict Ferton (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who created the page but I made some editing. all I added has sources and besides that, his name is mentioned in different wiki pages and different categories. could you tell me what's the reason that you keep asking for deletion? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva Jacobson (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the timestamps in the nomination, this was created on 27 October 2015 and listed on that day's AfD log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as although Books and Scholar found some links, there's not much convincingly better. Pinging past users Yamaguchi先生 and Randykitty and also likely interested users DGG and LaMona. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to judge notability as a scholar in this field, as is always the case for people whose main work is as trasnlators. I consider the overall record sufficient to show expert status in the area. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been said before, Farshid Delshad fails the notability test on WP:NOTE. Others have also correctly pointed out problems with the article's sources primary. There are also no secondary sources independent of the subject himself, and the article itself appears to have a shady history involving self-promotion, as has been pointed out before. Jabberwalky112 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable. I think they are trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool rather than to educate others. As a member of the Iranian academic literary community, I cannot say I have ever heard of this person's works.JamshidPakzad (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think wikipedia really needs to looking deeper into articles primarily written by the subject himself. If they want to promote themselves, learn code and create your own webpage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and some questions; this article reads like a resume, telling readers what Delshad has accomplished, there appears to be no referenced analysis of his work, nor references showing the impact of his work in the area of linquistics. He has been a lecturer, not notable, has written a thesis, not notable, has obtained additional linguistic training, not notable, is a scholar, not in itself notable, and a translator, not notable, and has written a number of books, not notable. Where are the reviews of these books that tell the reader the impact they have made in Delshad's field? has he won any notable awards? As the article presently reads he does not appear to have made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"WP:ANYBIO. The references in the article only tell readers what he has done and written. I know notability doesn't apply to article content WP:NNC and WP:CONTN, but I hope that those editors who believe this article should be kept can provide some useable citations. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muzi Dlamini[edit]

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

Once this person is disambiguated form the comedian of the same name, the only results on a Google search are to WP:ROUTINE mentions on statistics pages. I was not able to find any actual non-trivial discussion of the subject in reliable, independent, verifiable sources. While he may meet the notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTY, it looks like he fails the notability policy requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 03:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in light of below. KDS4444^Talk 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned, he fulfills WP:NFOOTY. MbahGondrong (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that it doesn't help that name-wise, Muzi Dlamini appears to be the Swazi equivalent of John Smith, it seems odd that nominator could only come up with statistical stuff. There are any amount of routine match reports, scoring goals in important games (e.g. an agency piece carried worldwide reports his opening the scoring as his team eliminated a South African team from this season's CAF Confed Cup, the first time a Swazi team had ever done so) as well as just name-checks where he didn't do much, but that's what you always get with sportspeople. And there are enough bits to take coverage beyond the routine, e.g. from 2010, individual praise from the country's Sports Minister for the then 16-year-old Dlamini,

Minister of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs Hlobsile Ndlovu rightly praised youngster Muzi Dlamini as he scored three of the seven goals that were by his team to beat Hhohho Super League side Supersport 7-nil and send them out of the competition. The Minister pointed out that football is coming home if the country has youngsters such as Muzi who can score such wondrous goals.

the Times of Swaziland features him as one of four potential matchwinners in the 2010 Swazi Cup semifinals;

from 2013, the Swazi Observer reports detail of contractual difficulties the player had with his club (the general manager is also called Dlamini, which is confusing, and the player is mainly referred to by his nickname, Mzoro);

from 2014, an attack of chickenpox (!)

etc, etc. While none of this is a two-page spread in the New York Times, it does amount to ongoing coverage of the player in the national press of his country (and to some extent outside it) over at least the last five years, and illustrates that in Mr Dlamini's case, the presumption of notability afforded to senior international footballers by the subject-specific guideline is justified. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY as a Swazi international. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and getting there with WP:GNG thanks to Struway2's research above. Giant Snowman 11:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium attendances of Asian Football Leagues[edit]

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

Attempted to PROD this article but original author objected, so am bringing here to AfD. I am not sure how a list of stadium attendances is itself a notable thing— the references as given appear to support the statistics given in the list, but this does not mean that the subject of the article is itself notable. KDS4444^Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, look to be OR and NOTSTATS issues. Any 'record' attendances should be covered under a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments Spiderone 12:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Healey (autism activist)[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)

The independent third party sources provided there seems to be trivial coverages such as the celebrity/Twitter backed anti-bullying campaign, meeting the Queen and the Olympic torch relay and not serious enough to make up any real forms of notability. Some of the sources provided no longer exist but I am doubtful they anything third party and independent to be useful.

Taking those rotten sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful to make up an article as the evidence of notability provided does not hint anywhere further than outside his hometown. This article fall short of WP:BIO in this current state. Donnie Park (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. User has a Twitter account @Kevin_Healey and has asked his followers to vote to keep his page. Much of information is old and is either connected to the subject or seems to be close to the subject. Subject did not win an award, this type of award is given to an organisation and not an individual. Lucylivescot (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

looks like a personal attack on Kevin from this first user, whom requested a deletion - page taken down, Kevin has won the Queens Award the first autism charity in the UK, service user led, is an award winning campaigner, and the sources still do exists, and its not just his home town he has won national awards, — 81.108.171.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:29, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

Personal attack? Who is he? I don't know this person at all, there are people who gets these achievements and do they get Wikipedia articles. You can nominate all you can but those who think they can get away, WP:SPA applies to nominators because I'll be checking the history from time to time. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. As notified by a nominator above, we have to be on a full WP:SPA alert here, funny that somebody seem to care about his own Wikipedia page. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, Donnie Park, and why so adamant if not vitriolic? There is no doubt in my mind that it IS a personal, trollish attack. Kevin Healey's interest and actions aren't even in your listed areas of interest. I'm not in Kevin's home town and have interacted with him for months now. He and his book have inspired me and my nephew with Asperger's. What benefit would deleting the page have except a very personal and tiny-minded ego stroke for yourself? I'd suggest that you live up to your tag-line and get a life. — 109.147.251.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Whoa, why be personal? Why do you have to think an AfD is an attack? If you think he is notable, why don't you sort the article out yourself and namecalling standard editors a troll and wishing karma up against them won't help either, especially from a so-called anti-bullying campaigner. Donnie Park (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has posted asking for Twitter users to vote for his article in order to retain it > https://twitter.com/kevin_healey/status/661317156483801091 Lucylivescot (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

How can we stop wiki from removing this, Kevin doesn't need this, it's a personal attack. — Angiec2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This subject continues to claim page was up for 8 years. Created on 21/8/2014. User tweeting continually asking for people to edit his page https://twitter.com/kevin_healey/status/661328852053008384 Lucylivescot (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Its a sad fact, somebody getting upset over his own Wikipedia page. Donnie Park (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Park I tried to raise for speedy delete but fell due to open AfD Lucylivescot (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Because it isn't needed as it was AfD'd (you can use AfD, WP:PROD or CSD) but thanks anyway. Donnie Park (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously wrong to delete this page.

1- "Taking the sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful as his notability does not go anywhere further than outside his hometown." This statement is false. Kevin Healey's notability is far wider than his hometown.

2- Kevin Healey is notable for his campaign against internet bullying. Which is supported by many people, over a large geographical area, and not limited to Autism. It is acceptable for him to mention the attempt to delete his Wikipedia page on Twitter. — Standmain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This is not the point, the point is does this article meet the guidelines required for notability as its in a terrible state. Plus most of these claims are self-published like his website and autobiography which takes the notability away and the national coverage he has such as Daily Mail are trivial mentions, so that solely leaves his notability in terms of Wikipedia standard within his home area and anybody with a story can contribute to a local newspaper. Donnie Park (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Donnie Park (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the page is in need of improvement in being more biographical and ensuring neutral point of view but it feels like the notablility guidelines are being met.

I would disagree that the Daily Mail article constitutes a trivial mention - as stated in the guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Kevin Healey is mentioned and features throughout the article even though more photo space is given over to celebrities. Whilst it could be argued either way that the main topic was the celebrity support or the main topic was his campaign I don't see even the latter case equating to a trivial mention.

It is also stated that much of the information is "old" however the guidelines also tell us that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." So it seems to me that over time signifcant coverage has been given to the subject. Pstansbu (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say he isn't overall not notable but it did not appear to be when I nominated it or aside Daily Mail, his third party coverage provided seems restricted to within Staffordshire. In the latest edit, he really should be thankful for In actu (Guerillero) for doing the job for him but Healey himself mounting a twitter hate campaign against me in between this and the nomination doesn't help at all. Donnie Park (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a lot of ad homimen commentary form all sides around this topic (on wikipedia and off it) - generally not helpful. Also I haven't tracked back through all earlier versions of the page - in its current state it feels in need of improvement rather than deletion.Pstansbu (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-In actu version, I could had helped but he have bred one angry Wikipedian out there. Donnie Park (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are potential copyright problems with this article --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have spent a couple of hours bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards, including reference formatting, what is (and isn't) allowed under external links, rephrasing some plagiarism that was previously present, and, most importantly, adding sources to establish Kevin Healey's notability.

‣ For the benefit of newcomers to Wikipedia deletion discussions, I would like to point out that Wikipedia holds all articles to a notability standard (legalese version here) which can be summed up as saying every Wikipedia article must show that there has been significant coverage of its subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means more than one or two sources, and more than a sentence or two in each one; reliable sources are defined as publications with editorial control and fact-checking, such as newspapers, magazines, TV news, and some book publishers; and independent means neither the subject's own website or book, nor the websites of organizations to which they belong, nor even interviews with the subject of a Wikipedia article, can establish that person's notability as Wikipedia defines notability.

‣ For the benefit of my fellow experienced editors, I would direct your attention to the Daily Mail article (which is clearly not a "trivial mention" if you read the entire article), the ITV coverage (the video is ITV content, not the documentary itself), the two BBC News articles, and this article in The Sentinel, all of which are properly cited in the article under discussion. I agree that Healey's notability was questionable before, but I argue that it is now well-established. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Healey person should thank you for this; in between he himself mounted a hate campaign against me, describing it a personal vendetta and not distinguishing the difference between a Wikipedia editor and his regular trolls (if there is any evidence), rather than doing something about it. Donnie Park (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donnie Park. Nice to see you outside the context of DYK review. I'm sorry you feel attacked for having nominated this article for deletion. I can see how to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies it may have looked like just another attempt at harassment of Mr Healey, given his history of being the victim of cyber-bullying (and as that history has been reported by reliable sources, as Wikipedia editors we have no business questioning it). It's perfectly reasonable for people who are not Wikipedia editors not to understand how our notability standard works. Speaking of which, have you had a chance to re-evaluate his notability based on the sources I added to the article? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I going to get an apology from KevinhealeyAutism for his actions first as it was him who triggered the hate campaign via social media? He think he can walk over anybody but I won't let him walk over me. I'm not apologizing unless he apologize first because he caused me to react that way. Donnie Park (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Park, I think we should keep discussion of who owes an apology to whom off this page, which is properly about the status of the article only. My talk page has worked as a neutral space for the two of you to air your grievances thus far. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The edits made since my previous comments have addressed the concerns I had.Pstansbu (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the edits, I don't see what makes him notable, or different from the thousands of activists out there. Zebras234 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with your assertion that he is no different from thousands of other activists and I have no doubt there are also many activists (probably still in the thousands) who would meet the notability criteria even more clearly than Kevin. This serves to highlight one of the great things about Wikipedia - unlike with print media we no longer have to be relative and selective to contain the publication to a certain size or length. Therefore no is no concept of ranking or saying a person with a Wikipedia page is more worthy than one without - anybody who meets the specific Wikipedia criterion for notability (summed up neatly in an earlier post) can be included. So this is all we are considering is this case.Pstansbu (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not consider anything here notable. Being invited to a garden party and chinwagging with queenie may be an honour, but many people have done it throughout her reign, some truly notable and worthy of articles, others not. Similarly, bearing the torch must've been a great honour, but in itself does not make the subject automatically notable. The book is as close to being self published as possible, and has not generated much hype. The Staffordshire and North Staffordshire groups seem to me regional groups with little national coverage or influence. There are many regions and many conditions, and they do not to me confer the status of notability. The one thing that did impress me was the number of Twitter followers, which at over 100,000 does indicate a following if all are genuine, however other platforms (such as YouTube) do not replicate the same level of success. I do not consider someone notable just because their tweets are picked up by a large following. And the final point on notability, and perhaps the most significant is: if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It seems the DM article only attracted attention because of the famous names attached to it. There have been a couple of BBC news stories but they are regional ones, and finally an ITV/ITN video. Overall this does not seem to me anywhere near the significant level of coverage needed to justify a page here. Some of his charity work is good, but there are many, many tireless campaigners and charity administrators who get some recognition from within their own communities, and occasionally get mentioned in the press etc but would never warrant an article on here. I believe this is the same with this subject.

For the record, I am looking at this from a completely objective standpoint. There are no personal attacks here, I'm just stating the facts as I see them and applying the guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY (see news search [126]), and kudos to User:GrammarFascist for bringing this article up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Google news search mentioned just above gets this over the line on notability - and by a long way. Footy Freak7 (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kevin Healey is a well-known figure who has done notable things, such as appearing in newspapers and meeting the PM. He is a serious campaigner whose campaign has recieved coverage in third-party sources, therefore making him notable as per the guidelines. RailwayScientist (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HEY LOOK EVEN MORE SOURCES

The Independent
Metro
Sky News (as reported in The Sentinel)

All have of course been added to the article as citations backing content in the article. Will those in favor of deletion now try to claim that The Independent, Metro or Sky News are "local" and thus somehow don't count either? Or perhaps the fact a celebrity is mentioned in one article will be taken to mean that the coverage of Healey in it doesn't count? Notability isn't about whether we think reliable sources should have covered a subject (and it's clear from their arguments that some of those advocating to delete feel media outlets shouldn't have covered Kevin Healey); it's about whether in fact reliable sources did cover the subject. And they have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: According to Wikipedia’s policy, WP:GNG, which states that “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list,” the subject of the article does meet the notability criteria.Pixarh (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. as G8 by bot. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance technology[edit]

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

Delete what was just made a redirect by another author, along with InsureTech, as both terms appear to be invented by the article creator and sourced a book written by someone with same name Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lat Lag Gayee[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. Online music streaming websites aren't WP:RS. The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No convincingly better coverage aside from for the film. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this doesn't need a separate article. The current material (some paragraphs about his portrayal in literature) could perhaps later be restored and merged to another article if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 17:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim view of Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At least 90% of the content here is identical to content found at Ali, so this article is an unnecessary duplicate. More than 80% just consist of block quotes, all of them also found at Ali. The intro makes no sense, and also seems to have been copied. If we remove the duplicate material, we're down to one or two sentences. Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content needs to stay in an article somwhere. Either in this article, which has already survived two AfDs, or the Ali article, or both. The nominator is currently trying to delete the content from both articles. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender is correct I think the content needs to be edited to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE (I'm not saying it all should be deleted), but that is a matter for later discussion. My point here is that we currently have one article that is identical to a section in another article, making it an unnecessary duplicate. Non-Muslim views on Ali is notable, and should be found on Wikipedia, but I think the article on Ali is the right place for that. And once again, it's all there already in Ali, so this AfD is simply about deleting a duplicate, not about deleting any content. Jeppiz (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your wholesale removal of the content from the Ali article 8 hours ago, and your subsequent talk page insistence on keeping it out, I am not finding that statement to be convincing. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I note that Softlavender has been stalking me across several pages and repeatedly misrepresented my comments. At ANI she claimed I had not notified a user, which I had. She claimed I had reverted an article three times, which I had not, and now she's here assuming bad faith about the nomination, ignoring that the article is a duplicate. Anyone can check the talk page at Ali, where I discuss how to best use the material, not to keep it out. We should have this section, and we should have it in one place. Jeppiz (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, I am not stalking you. This is an article you publicized on ANI, and you publicized Ali on this AfD nomination. And you're ignoring the fact that I have consistently agreed with your viewpoint on Muhammad's views on slavery (which you also publicized on ANI). At ANI I mistook your tag-teaming with the other editor as three deletions by you when only two were by you, and I noted that. I'm not ignoring the fact that this article in part duplicates some material contained in part of another article, I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate. I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use [127], [128]. Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed duplicate material once from Ali, then realized that that article was the proper place for it, not this one. As my talk page edits show, I've repeatedly stated we should have this material in one place (at Ali) and in proper format. You consistently misrepresent my concerns about the format as wanting to remove it all, even though I've exlained it repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, please don't use the word "stalking" lightly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Of course, my apologies. I was a bit exasperated that day when a user I don't remember ever having interacted with suddenly appeared in a number of talk pages to repeatedly ascribed me sinister motives, but I should have expressed myself differently. Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jeppiz. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fully sourced and notable topic. Has already passed two AfDs. This is feeling like a bad-faith nomination to me for reasons stated above. I'm actually trying to AGF as much as possible despite the edit-warring and tag-teaming on both articles, but the worst-case scenario is that for some reason the user is trying to suppress positive viewpoints on Ali or Islam. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not address the topic. As I explained, at length, the article is a duplicate. It's not about suppressing positive viewpoints, it's about not having an article that is identical to another one. Jeppiz (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use [129], [130]. Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we have told you we are using all quotes, so can you stop disrupting the articles. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are there for a reason, they are sourced content and Jeppiz is on a crusade against Ali for some unknown reasons and willing to cut lots of source content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is the main champion of the article, but again does not address that this is a duplicate article. I'm not suggesting deleting the original, just the copy. Jeppiz (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main champions because other users are not patrolling the article enough to point out their reasons. Previous attempt had garnered 5 or more people in the consensus. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last nomination results in no consensus, the first one is 9 years old. Perhaps it was not a duplicate back then? This nomination is for the situation in 2015, not 2006. If you and Softlavender would stop your regular WP:ABF against me and instead explain why we should have a duplicate article here? Jeppiz (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are assuming good faith to us???? Please you are hurting my stomach from laughing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to explain why we should have a duplicate article, that's all. Jeppiz (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a duplicate article Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up. The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason. Who selected the authors and quotes? Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims? There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors. As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section Ali#Non-Muslim_views, and should not exist. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to allegations: > The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up.
Yes made up of the non-Muslim views of Ali.
>The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason.
They are selected based on the notability and knwoeldge of the author to Ali ibn Abi Talib.
>Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims?
It doesn't have to be an object of scholarly study to be featured in Wikipedia with references and sources.
>There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors.
Why? These random editors is what helped create and made these pages flourish. That is the beauty of Wikipedia.>
As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section
Actually it's not you can look it by yourself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why"? Because WP:NOR, of course. Wikipedia makes articles about topics that exist, not topic it creates itself based on WP:SYNTH, except for some lists. LjL (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>"Why"? Because WP:NOR, of course.
I never said that, nor implied that
>Wikipedia makes articles about topics that exist, not topic it creates itself based on WP:SYNTH, except for some lists
You mean your wikipedia? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't say that, I did. I mean the one Wikipedia with its policies and guidelines, such as the above-cited WP:NOR. Please stick to the topic of this article's deletion. LjL (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a user follows me around several articles assuming bad faith, I emphasize once again that I nominate this article because it's a complete duplicate of a section at Ali, something the user refuses to even acknowledge or discuss, instead insisting on discussing me. I would hope the AfD-discussion could be about this duplicate, and those who state keep could explain the rationale for having the same content in several places, instead of just saying "keep" and then make the whole argument about me. Jeppiz (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about me? Sir enough with the spreading of misinformation about me, I'm actually assuming you have good faith in deleting this article? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this is basically just a gluing-together of quotations and constitutes a blatant WP:CFORK. It's not an article and, per title, shouldn't even be. Ali can and should keep whatever relevant content about the non-Muslim views on him there is (but I'm not suggesting to merge this article there, because this is nowhere near what any of that content should look like encyclopedically. I would suggest other similar AfDs for various "Non-Muslim view of ..." articles. LjL (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first I would have said ~~merge~~ whatever is salvagable to Ali. In the current situation however, the article is merely a warning to the reader followed by a list of loosely associated quotations, which Wikipedia is not. This quotation list should be moved to Wikiquote or be deleted . - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment HyperGaruda, maybe what you are saying is true. We can move it to Wikiquote Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While an articles with a topic such as Historicity of Ali are appropriate, separating the views of scholars and historians according to whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable and it deserves to have a stand alone article. Reading the comments, I saw that some users have questioned the title and I should say in response that some titles are descriptive and so you can't find the exactly similar term in sources (see WP:NDESC). --Mhhossein (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you're trying to show it's notable by linking to the exact phrase on Google Search? LjL (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results show how the the article have been the discussed in sources. Mhhossein (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by "sources" you mean (rather than WP:RS) "random websites including Wikipedia"... LjL (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect books or articles entirely devoted to this subject I think there are few! but I could find some persian reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Jeppiz, LjL, and E.M.Gregory: I think the Ali#Non-Muslim views should move to this sub-article. This is the result of the former discussions like Talk:Ali/Archive 6#Suggestion for moving some content on views out of the article for the sake of length with @User:MezzoMezzo.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for that subsection as for this article: a clear WP:NOTQUOTE (#1). LjL (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At present, it is a poor article. however, we can the current situation is not enough reason to delete the article based on WP:ARTN. Therefor, we can move the quotations to wikiquote and improve the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS comment. In its current situation, the article is fully based on primary sources, i.e. the views themselves. Without some secondary source that actually discusses various non-Muslim perceptions of Ali, the whole thing is WP:SYNTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article is notable and sourced with valid references. If the quotations is main issue, It is better move them to Wikiquote.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean don't keep? Because you know, Wikiquote is a separate site from Wikipedia. It would mean it's not being kept here. LjL (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^discuss 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEWORTHY. SpyButeo (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are far too many of these POV-fork articles on Islam. Wikipedia:Content forking says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forky POV-filled article on a subject that does not appear noteworthy and which consists almost entirely of OR-selected primary source quotes (mostly from 19thC works), quotes whose significance, given their lack of interpretation or context, it is impossible to assess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also think that this seemingly arbitrary (!) collection of quotes is inappropriate, and Wikipedia editors should not go around dividing opinions into positive and negative. Without secondary sourcing there is no topic; the only acceptable kind of source I see in the article is an article called "A Critical Survey of Modern Studies of Muhammad", but that's from 1963, it's not about Ali (directly), and the only thing it is used for is a critique of a Jesuit of the 19th/20th century who apparently had a holy contempt for Islam and said something about Ali. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Softlavender, let me take a moment to try and address some of the points you made. The previous two AfDs closed as "no consensus" and it's hard to find fault with that--they are terrible AfDs without many valid arguments on either side (except "POV fork", which, I guess, is an easy accusation to make in many such cases). Besides, both discussions took place in 2006--nine years ago. On the other hand, I understand that one might think that we're trying to delete "positive" content here, but I think we will be better served with a better article, better title, better sourcing, better selection. Until we have a significant amount of material supported by secondary sources, I think we should make this article a redirect to the appropriate section in Ali. BTW, I just looked at that section (after looking at the back-and-forthing between Jeppiz and Alexis Ivanov, and it's actually not that terrible. There's plenty of problems: that [Kahlil Gibran]] is "non-Muslim" isn't all that clear, and why the opinion of George Jordac is so notable is not clear. The bigger question is still, as far as I'm concerned, what "non-Muslim" means: I am not convinced that this is a simple matter. (The governor of my home state no doubt disagrees.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete This should be settled once and for all, perhaps even SALT. from the previous discussions I cans see that many of the keep votes just arbitrarily throw around words without linking any sources covering this in depth. Furthermore Kahlil Gibran is non-muslim? how did that happen? Also, what kind of non-muslim opinions are we going to put here? Can I put in the opinion of Herr Geert Wilder? OR Bill Maher? I would think that many obstacles would be raised on such an inclusion. To be frank this article survives AFD's because people huff and puff, but give no valid reasons for their keep votes. That should change. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FreeatlastChitchat, Drmies, Tiptoethrutheminefield, Jeppiz, HyperGaruda, and E.M.Gregory: I replaced irrelevant and improper information with the more suitable one. Please reconsider the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Depiction of Ali" or "Portrayal of Ali", regarding the current state of affairs. But let's face it, unlike a pronounced Shia or Sunni view, there just isn't a "non-Muslim view" (opinion) which has received significant coverage (read: discussion), so still a delete for "Non-Muslim view of Ali". - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sa.vakilian has totally changed the article (which is totally OK by me - the new version is much improved). But I still think that this should not be a separate article. This could perhaps be included in the main article, it is not too long. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian and HyperGaruda: I agree to Move the article to Depiction of Ali. The main article is too long and the current article can expand with this new title so that it includes Ali's depiction in Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Turkish, ... literature. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That still risks being OR Synthesis, just like the current one (before it was stripped of its quotes). We have Ali in Muslim culture, Shia view of Ali and Sunni view of Ali - that should be sufficient since almost all other views will be non-faith based factual accounts or opinions about his historical importance, which are the sort of things that should be in the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As A11 by TomStar81 (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InsureTech[edit]

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

Also Delete Insurance technology which was effectively a duplicate until it was just redirected to InsureTech Evidently Puschmann coined this term in his book because I can't see anyone else using it. A User:Tpuschmann - same name as the writer of the only cite, is the article creator. There are several companies that use InsureTech in their name. but that is not what this is about, and this title would not be suitable for possible articles about the companies.Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A3, A7, G5, G11) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helloworld.com.au[edit]

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

This is basically advertising for a travel website. It's been tagged for improvement for months. Previously PROD by me. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE... I agree that this article is basically advertising, but I think that it should be considered for speedy deletion, especially since it fits in category A.7 (no indication of importance). If there was a wiki for every app that topped the charts of the iTunes store, we'd have a MAJOR problem. EDIT: I placed a tag on the page, nominating it for speedy deletion. The creator was banned. {Thank you! larsona 07:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

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

[1] Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency - Volume 22, quote: "Before the joint Maratha and Nizam armies could march, a small force under Konherrao Patvardhan and Pandurang, was (1776) sent to drive Haidar's troops out of Savanur. Muhammad Ali, the Maisur general and Raghoba's agent in command of a body of auxiliary Marathas, came up with the troops under the Patvardhan at Sansi about twenty-five miles south-east of Dharwar. Finding the Poona force drawn up in order of battle, Muhammad Ali began the action with his cavalry. He feigned a check, and, retiring in apparent disorder, was thoughtlessly followed by the Marathas, who, confident of victory, pursued in headlong haste till the fugitive Musalmans suddenly disappeared through openings in a powerful reserve. At the same time a body of men in ambush poured into the flanks of the Marathas a tremendous fire of graph and musketry. The slaughter was serious and the confusion hopeless. Muhammad Ali made a determined charge at the head of his cavalry, and, completing the rout, continued the pursuit for nine miles, and captured many of the Marathas, among them their leader Pandurang. After this defeat, in 1777...", Government Central Press, 1884, p. 413 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: others (link)

[2] C. A. Kincaid (1925), A History of the Maratha People (PDF), note: "Sansi" as quoted in this text on page 119 refers to Saunshi, Oxford University Press, p. 119

[3] "The Big Book of Buds". pp. 233–235.

[4] "Danny Danko's Marijuana Strain of the Week". High Times.

[5] "The Cannabible 3". p. 370.

[6] ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/plagscan.com

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]